@Kulverstukas - you're right. If I squint I can see. The CVR does not look badly damaged - certainly less so than the FDR.

I'm wondering where the recorders are being analysed, and to repeat my earlier question - how good are the Egyptian resources for doing this?

Surely, in the history of modern aviation (i am talking the jet age using vacuum loos), would this event not have replicated many times? Not just on aircraft, but anywhere human waste is collected? That theory is a non starter imho.

Regarding the bomb theory. If there is a rogue baggage handler, cabin cleaner, ground ops person etc. at Sharm (or where the aircraft originated), would you not keep quiet? The opportunity still exists to do it again? The fact that it is a Russian airliner also adds weight to that theory, in that Russia have only recently started to fight IS in Syria.

I think we are down to 2 theories. A fuel tank explosion, which rare, is not unprecendeted in modern jets, or a bomb, either planted prior or carried onboard. Remember, the passengers were not 100% Russian.....

Both theories would lend themselves to the flash seen by the US satellite. The tail coming off (again imho) would not have caused a flash.

Well
The Egyptians will be desperate for it to be anything but a bomb as if it were it would truly screw over their tourist industry.

The French/German/USA will be desperate for it to be a bomb so it can be blamed on 'terrorism' (that's freedom-fighters if you are on the other side) and that the aircraft is 100% OK.

The Russians will be in a quandry.
1. if it was a bomb then they would be forced into some retaliatory action which they probably do not want to get involved in for all sorts or reasons.
2. If it was crew or technical failure then that is not much better as it was their crews and their airlines operating it.
So on balance the Russians would probably hope it is some undetected and undetectable technical issue with the aircraft or engines.

I am nearly sure that data from both recorders are readable. Containers with memory modules are in good state. It may not be readable through local interface, but solid state memory modules probably will not be damaged.

Since 9/11 we are seeing billions invested in security theater, and at the same time every half-assed businessman operating out of a shed in some third world country is allowed to ferry passengers in airliners.

Rather than all the baroque theories of malfeasance, is someone actually looking at simple structural failure through too many cycles, allowed by insufficient inspections? That Airbus was 18 years old, enough for a mediocre maintenance régime and a few undeclared hard knocks to take their toll.

Edmund

A fuel tank explosion might be the effect, not the cause.

E.g., an uncontained engine failure might lead a chain of events and subsequent rupture of a tank, either through direct piercing or through structural breakup, causing an explosion.

Please, at least let's try to quote correctly. BBC says:

"All flights due to leave the holiday resort for Britain this evening have been delayed to allow a team of UK experts to assess security"

NOT suspended.
(Sharm el-Sheikh flights to UK delayed amid bomb fears - BBC News)

I'm sure the airbus 'advisors' are doing exactly that, with some anxiety.

Cabinet Office Briefing Room
“The Prime Minister called President Sisi yesterday evening to discuss what measures the Egyptians are taking to ensure the tightest possible security arrangements at Sharm el-Sheikh airport.

“While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed. But as more information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device.

“In light of this and as a precautionary measure we have decided that flights due to leave Sharm for the UK this evening will be delayed. That will allow time for a team of UK aviation experts, currently travelling to Sharm, to make an assessment of the security arrangements in place at the airport and to identify whether any further action is required. We expect this assessment to be completed tonight.

“In terms of flights from the UK to Sharm, there are no more departures today.

“We would underline that this is a precautionary step and we are working closely with the airlines on this approach. The Prime Minister will chair a COBR at 18.45 to review the situation and we will provide an update after that meeting.

“We recognise that this information may cause concern for those in Sharm and indeed for those planning to travel to Sharm in the coming days. We have deployed extra consular staff to Sharm who will be on hand at the airport, working with the airlines, to assist British holidaymakers there. For others, either in resorts at Sharm or planning a holiday to Sharm in the coming days, our advice is to contact your airline or tour operator.”

“At this stage we are not changing the level of our Travel Advice.”

This is the worst possible news for airlines, Egypt and probably the world. Having operated out of SSH and visited as a tourist, a security breach (if there has been one) is hardly surprising.

I wonder if someone popped down to SSH and gave the security system there an eyeball, then reported back that all was not - for want of a better word - kosher. And who knows what other signals have come out of what would certainly have been a sudden and intensive look at intelligence gathered over recent days. Not every investigator working on this crash will have been pounding dust in the desert.

APU compartment explosion?
 

Came across this old report from 2004:


SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require modification of certain auxiliary power unit
(APU) alternating current (AC) generators. This proposed AD is prompted
by a report of an explosion in the APU compartment, which blew open the
compartment doors. We are proposing this AD to prevent oil vapor
leakage from the APU AC generator, which, when combined with an
electric arc at the electrical receptacle, could result in a fire or
explosion in the APU compartment during flight.

Federal Register, Volume 69 Issue 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)

No idea if any relevance - just thought I'd put it out here for the experts to comment on.

I totally agree with SLF. Surely this is a case of the government being ultra cautious & who knows what information may have been passed to Whitehall. Better to be safe than sorry.

One thing I noted from the beginning of the thread, which I think is ruled out.

Someone mentioned the ISIS would try to shoot down a Russian jet, with the argument Russia is now involved in Syria. Some then mentioned that would be unlikely, since ISIS would be unable to see who they were shooting at.

Are anyone aware that wrongdoers could very well be using the same tool we use everyday in following flights? Give the FlightRadar24 or another equivalent, and they'll have all the information they need to identify overflights.

Giving the generel public acces to data, previously keept for ATC, could very well be creating a sideeffect of not being able to "protect" flights.....

Sorry for the detour, but think about it, now back to the sad accident.

If this does prove to be a terrorist act, could the target have been any aircraft leaving Sharm and the one on which a device was plant just happened to be Russian? Thought about this since Saturday and if it was a response to Russian involvement in Syria, it doesn't allow much time to get a device in place from scratch. I wonder if this has been in planning for considerably longer?

I don´t think so.
1. I think that Putin´s words that "any attempt to intimidate Russia will fail and they will continue to fight with terrorism in Syria and anywhere" are clear enough. Also increase of fight activity in Syria right after disaster is visible.
2. MetroJet probably will finish operaton soon because of Rosaviacia measures. The same as most of companies after fatal disaster in Russia. And don´t forget, Metrojet is Russian company only "de iure".

If it was a Bomb and they find out who was responsible, I honestly don't see The Russkies being shy about retaliating.

Perhaps you Can state these Reasons why Russia would be averse to action, dsc810?

AAh I see, only I can see my posts...do you get off on this pathetic childishness?

Kulverstukas, I wonder how 'engine blast' became 'explosive device' by No 10. Politics.


In passing you mentioned
Do you happen to know when the drone took the aerial views of the crash site?


Thank you Pontius, I spotted that and quickly deleted it.

Thrust reversal related?
 

Could this break-up be thrust reversal related? (Lauda Air Flight 004, 26 May 1991)

Some Russian and/or Soviet era aircraft are able to reverse thrust in flight. Did pilot had previous experience in flaying Russian aircraft and deployed reversal by mistake?

Karel_x,
1) You're right, since first big terror act RF policy is "we doesn't trade with terrorist".
2) Kolavia/Metrojet/Brisco holding is owned by Russian (Chechen if it is of importance) and Turkish citizens 50/50.