Though FR24 themselves will know the coverage of their receivers in the area, range versus altitude, have some idea of terrain masking limits and the reliability of each receiver from historic data. All of which could constrain possibilities. However, this will be moot once the DFDR (and to a varying degree, the CVR) are read back.
Could the rattling noise be the RAT (auxiliary power device) having been deployed?One report can be dismissed as potentially unreliable but Reuters report finding several people providing similar accounts, namely 'fire' (sparks, smoke) from the rear of the plane, spilling luggage and a "strange rattling noise" both prior to impact with terrain. If they truly are independent witness reports then that could be significant. However, equally, the eye-witnesses could mistakenly be reporting "white smoke" when actually observing vapour trailing or fuel dumping.
The lack of ADS-B data after 6 minutes into the flight, until impact well over 30km of travel (several minutes) later, not only illustrates ADS-B coverage limits but points to a lack of altitude for the remaining flight duration otherwise it would re-appear above the local ADS-B receiver(s) horizon(s).
These factors might encourage investigators to rule out in-flight fire, small incendiary/explosive device or contributory engine issue (HAAB is relatively high altitude and tends to be hot which will contribute to lack of lift at take off).
I'd have no qualms. The fatality rate is currently comparable to UK car road deaths per km travelled (and far better than bicycle, pedestrian and motorcycle numbers).
Is that the fatality rate for 737 MAX8 or for all types, and over what period?
My own back of the envelope estimate for all 737 MAX 8's since launch. Probably on overestimate (ie the actual figure is better=safer) but was just done to get some sort of perspective.
Oh I'm not defending it. Just putting it into perspective. Doubtless much more crew training is required on this type.
I heard TUI were one of the only UK operators using these planes. I'm due to fly to London from Palma on a TUI flight on Friday so hoping I won't get stuck here.
*unless they put me up for a week in a TUI resort all expenses paid of course
Well possibly manslaughter but I was thinking more in terms of the financial costs. Their share price has already come off almost 20% since the crash; then there's victim compensation, taking all the planes out of service to fix the faults, compensation to the airlines ... etc. You wouldn't want to be their insurers.
Or their insurers' insurers
I'd more more concerned.
You know that's not going to happen.
When I was in New Zealand, one of the Auckland papers had a regular "we talk to travellers" column. Imagine my confusion.
