China Eastern Airlines Crash

Is intentional destruction a possibility that needs serious consideration?

I'm just an armchair detective like the rest of ye but could it have been intentional? Suicidal pilot perhaps. I really do hope not but it looks like it went into the ground like a dart.

If thats real, could it be a rear bulkhead failure and a explosive decompression and it ripped the tail off and more than likely all the hydraulics.

At freefall speeds would a black box survive such a crash?

The newest standard is but no guarantee this black box was built to that standard

Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s2) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots (310 mph; 500 km/h) and a deceleration or crushing distance of 45 cm (18 in).[43] Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion.

It sure looks like deliberate action to me.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mechanical failure, which on its own could cause an aircraft to spear at 90 degrees into terrain at what looks to be supersonic speed.

I'd be fairly satisfied that the image capture of the separated right wing was due to the stresses on the airframe from exceeding all tolerances in that dive.

If you had a broken rudder or elevator, or damage to any one or set of control surfaces and a flight crew was trying to fight that using the other surfaces, you'd see the sort of crash that has been documented many times of a semi-inversion or a flat stall or flat spin or a spiral dive at some catastrophic angle, but never a vertical near-supersonic dart. That's almost impossible to do on purpose, let alone to result from mechanical failure.

The nearest equivalent I can think of is United 93, where the hijackers forced the 757 at the ground when the passenger revolt got close to accessing the cockpit and even that plane ended up in an inverted reflex angle dive, not a vertical drop.

That was an Airbus.

The 737 was designed in the 1960s, some major components are carried over from the 707 which was designed in the 1950s. Engines, electronics etc. have been upgraded along the way, but the basic airframe and controls are as designed in 1965.

This is boards.ie.

everyone is an expert.

Yes they are, I myself have logged over 100 hours on flightradar.

The NTSB are often involved in foreign crashes, but would they be looking to get involved in this? Especially as it's a Boeing. I'm not sure how open Chinese authorities would be to that or just make them wait for their report.

I would be very surprised if total cooperation in air accident investigations isn't written into the sale contract for all civilian Boeing planes.

The NTSB are entitled under ICAO rules to participate in any investigation involving a US-registered, manufactured, or engined, aircraft. Of course these rules are not always observed by certain countries.

The airframe and control surfaces are not as designed in 1965.

There has been several generational changes in materials, engineering of airframe structure, shaping of aerodynamic and control surfaces etc, to accommodate fuel capacity changes, advancements in avionics, electronics, hydraulics and flight control.

Almost new planes rolled out from 1981-84, 1993-97, with a partial redevelopment under the Max programme, 2011-date.