We don’t know why the pilot elected to double back instead of go around. There may have been indications of a progressive failure that indicated that course of action, but it does seem hasty. That haste may have caused them to not be able to set up a stabilized, minimum speed approach, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor.
If there were significant winds it would have compounded those factors.
It is curious that the gear was retracted. I can only think that this was due to some kind of system failure? Perhaps that same failure explains the decision to double back instead of going around?
Lots of questions, hopefully there will be answers.
Still, the structure does not seem to meet the standard for frangibility that is indicated for objects in the approach path within 300m, although it’s not like it was at the very end of the runway.
Runway over/undershoots are actually quite common, and the building of a nonfrangible structure on an otherwise safe skid zone is a significant error in design principles that is not common or conformal to industry standards.
If those antennas had been placed on property designed towers instead of a concrete bunker, the passengers and crew very well may have walked away without a scratch, despite any errors on the part of the crew or procedures of the airline.
They declared mayday and then were on the ground in like 3 minutes. I think they probably just forgot gear given how rushed the landing was. We'll find out from the investigation.
Youtuber’s Denys Davydov (ex pilot of same plane), pet theory: bird got into the engine, pilot by mistake shut off wrong engine, due to no engine - hydraulic pump was non-functional, which resulted in landing gear problems. (also something about ground effect)
This wouldn't be the first time a pilot killed the wrong engine:
"TransAsia Pilot Shut Off Wrong Engine Moments Before Crash" (2015)
Taiwan aviation officials on Tuesday released a detailed report of how the pilot mistakenly shut off the plane's only working engine after the other lost power. "Wow, pulled back the wrong side throttle," the captain said shortly before crashing.
This whole thread is a tire fire poor logic and critical thinking.
That said, I have seen some absolutely horrendous responses to emergencies go from kinda bad to massive destruction of property, so much so that unless one has trained for the specific emergency, the best course of action is to assess way more than you think you need. And we often have more time than we think, and we make the the right decisions, they are the right decisions because they give us more time.
So... the degree of control they have over the plane on landing suggests they have some degree of hydraulic control. It's possible they throttled down the wrong engine, but this is speculation at this time.
Landing gear has a manual gravity release by the first officer that doesn't require the hydraulics. (But does take some time.)
Ground effect was certainly involved (why they glided so far before touching down) but the bigger factor was their high speed, lack of flaps, and lack of gear.
They retracted the gear after the first landing attempt. I suspect they either missed it on the teardrop or had secondary hydraulic failure and no time to do a gravity drop. I would err on the side of crew error because there were clear signs the hydraulic systems were functioning (thrust reverser and that they could retract the gear in the first place). Hydraulics don’t fail instantly and one engine was spooling still on landing.
That's why EASA says put the plane down if there’s a strike on approach. Ryanair 4102 is a good example of a close one there as a reference.
Yes, if you view the footage of the bird strike on first approach you will see the landing gear is extended.
ETA: The primary footage is hard to find now that the topic is so saturated, but there is a specific clip from a close vantage where it is highly visible. I'll include a link if I can find it.
If there were significant winds it would have compounded those factors.
It is curious that the gear was retracted. I can only think that this was due to some kind of system failure? Perhaps that same failure explains the decision to double back instead of going around?
Lots of questions, hopefully there will be answers.
Still, the structure does not seem to meet the standard for frangibility that is indicated for objects in the approach path within 300m, although it’s not like it was at the very end of the runway.
Runway over/undershoots are actually quite common, and the building of a nonfrangible structure on an otherwise safe skid zone is a significant error in design principles that is not common or conformal to industry standards.
If those antennas had been placed on property designed towers instead of a concrete bunker, the passengers and crew very well may have walked away without a scratch, despite any errors on the part of the crew or procedures of the airline.