Technically, this is exactly how it works not in the PRC. Everything is a joint, comittee decision. To illustrate, for a business contract it is the stamp that matters, not the signature. ​TREs are not allowed to fail a candidate without approval. Etc.

Not ruling out a revenge motiff, just pointing out the local custom.

Thats not how people I know working there in non airline jobs see it working. The have committees for everything. They are rubber stamps for the real person in charge.

Don't know. Just assume/reflect that demoting a poster-instructor would need to include a CCP panel, worker's union council plus the flight ops management team of the local base and the HQ as well as agreement of their POI. After all, this is a government-run airline. Some of the stability and persistence comes from the stakeholders opposing each other. What's agreed becomes cast in stone.

Of course, if the suicide turns out to be true then logic would not have played a major role.

Kindly consider the edge of my previous post unnecessary as well as unintentional.

This story states that both recorders were sent to the NTSB.

Seattle Times

Recorders condition
 

Chinese official sources during the SAR operation clearly stated a number of times that the recorders would be send to Beijing for download and analysis.

As I posted earlier there was note of more serious damage to the CVR can than at first impression and needed manufacturer involvement (Honeywell). So the same might be true for the FDR now. The FDR can having been recovered days later after being exposed to rainy conditions.Both cans showed similar scratching damage and a little bending at one flat end, but no exposure to fire it seems.

If the recorders were not compromised during an earlier attempt (there always is a risk), then this may point to a longer time before analysis may be started.

This might be just the typical technical assistance to just download the recorders. It doesn't change the Chinese civil aviation authority leading the investigation.

They probably 'only' need to transfer the memory modules to a another circuit board.

Correct. Investigation protocol means that the NTSB will not make any announcements re findings.

Posts
 

@less hair - of course, it does not change the lead,

As dave says - all according to the well known procedures,… indeed,

@procede - I think the damage is more than that, … putting chips on another board is something you expect the Chinese are well capable of (can always send the required board) … after proper drying and such… but hope we will find out more later,

I think this is a case of "you do not want to mess it up, so you really want to leave it with those who have most experience with repairing it". And (de)soldering chips is something you have be really careful with as you do not want to overheat them.

Can be that even some memory IC are damaged. The Chinese have surely some capability in this case but I would send it to the manufacturer because they know best what to do to get to the data. You can easily destroy existing data with wrong methods. At least it shows, that the CAAC takes this serious to get to the truth.

While I have to be careful because I'm only getting info directly from current CE employees, at least internally the reason being given for the 3rd crew and the captain flying as a F/O is all about Covid. Effectively I've been told by former students of mine (Cadets for 3 Chinese airlines) that most domestic flights are being crewed by 3 pilots with all 3 pilots logging time due to the current downturn with covid and company minimum hour requirements.

Again without naming the company or person at least 1 of my contacts (A recently type rated 320 F/O) is that for the last 3 months every flight has had 2 Captains flying and him logging F/O time from the jumpseat.

Eh, need to check with them if there used to be 3 pilots on most domestic flights also before COVID (yes). Logging the jumpseat is normal because it is an official duty, although keeping captains current for take-offs and landings first does make sense.

Not blaming the messenger, the concept of 'least painful logically acceptable explanation' is well established and sadly aims to disconnect from analytical truth / causality.

Yes 3, even 4 crew in a cockpit is relatively normal. 2 Captains almost always operating a flight while actual F/Os as rostered as jump seaters is not normal. Again whether it's the reason, in this case, is completely unknown and the other explanation if the source is correct is definitely plausible, in fact, it would take a lot less than a terrain warning GPWS callout (upsetting a F/O whom has contacts in management could get you demoted). But at the same time, I've personally witnessed a F/O pass a type rating despite descending below MDA and having to be reminded on the MDA. (Someone didn't know I understood basic mandarin i think)

Also to whomever I read above saying their sims are hard I can agree, I was part of a management group that visited one of our contract airlines pre covid - our Head of Ops was a prior 737 Captain and commented on the standard expected of cadets, especially on your more specific emergencies like runaway trim and hydraulic failure - also some near impossible combinations of failures eg. V1 engine failure and runaway trim passing 2500 feet with flaps jammed

South China Morning Post:
The head of China’s Civil Aviation Administration has vowed to deeply reflect on all aspects of the deadly crash of flight MU5735 and step up safety checks with “extreme” vigilance across the industry.
Speaking in a teleconference on Wednesday, Feng Zhenglin, director of the Civil Aviation Administration, directed officials to increase their knowledge of aviation safety regulations and to carry out more thorough inspections to detect hidden risks.

Interesting comments - is he alluding to a possible maintenance-related oversight or technical issue being a possible cause?
I note an earlier post in the thread saying that the aircraft was on the ground for 2 days prior to the day of the accident. Was it in maintenance?

You mean that FR24 did not register a flight on the 17th and the 19th in the period 14-21st. So the 2 days were not consecutive.
Also (for completeness) note that FR does not appear to show maintenance flights. They regularly do show manufacturing (production test) flights.

I doubt it. These motherhood-type statements are fairly typical of the CAAC. They implemented a two-week nationwide inspection of all parts of China's aviation industry immediately after the accident, in response to Xi Jinping's directive to "strengthen the safety overhaul of the civil aviation sector to ensure the absolute safety of the sector and people's lives".

Global Times:
Chinese airlines take concrete measures to strengthen flight safety after crash

What does seem to be the case is that, of all airlines, Chinese or not, only China Eastern has grounded its 737-800 fleet. Other Chinese airlines are still operating them "as normal" and, afaik, the Chinese CAA (nor anyone else) has issued no general instructions or bulletins regarding the 737-800.

It might be as complex as rewiring the integrated circuit pins to the silicon pads due to the large g-forces. If the silicon itself is fractured - then almost no chance of recovery.

Squares, by cracked silicone do you mean the case or the die itself ?
If the case is cracked you can " decap " the dies from the case an transplant it
if it's cracked thru the die, then yes, game over.