Somebody at my old airline who saw the whole thing said they hit the ground hard without flaring, on the mains, then bounced and poiposed into hitting the ground again with the nose. That pretty much looks like what this vid shows.

 

Where do you see a "bounce" and then it hitting again with the nose from that video?  I only see one "bounce" and then the camera goes black.  You're not a member of the media are you?  LOL 

Where do you see a "bounce" and then it hitting again with the nose from that video? I only see one "bounce" and then the camera goes black. You're not a member of the media are you? LOL

No, but I have made hard landings, and have even watched a 757 land on it's nose wheel once. I will say that the harder you hit, the harder you bounce. Just plain physics.

A pilot friend of mine holding short saw it as well, said they started to flare, began to float, lowered the nose to correct but over corrected and landed nose first. Ouch...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

No, but I have made hard landings, and have even watched a 757 land on it's nose wheel once. I will say that the harder you hit, the harder you bounce. Just plain physics.

Or the more damage you do. Definitely wont bounce every time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Somebody at my old airline who saw the whole thing said they hit the ground hard without flaring, on the mains, then bounced and poiposed into hitting the ground again with the nose. That pretty much looks like what this vid shows.

 

I see a relatively normal looking view out of an airline window, and then the phone is dropped accompanied by a scream. I don't see anything that indicates a secondary impact to me (nor does that video rule it out). I certainly don't see anything that would allow one to come to any kind of conclusion about what part of the landing gear contacted the ground when.

A pilot friend of mine holding short saw it as well, said they started to flare, began to float, lowered the nose to correct but over corrected and landed nose first. Ouch...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

Or the more damage you do. Definitely wont bounce every time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

How do you know that? Is it even possible for tires to hit the ground and not bounce?

Sure it is. It's all in how the energy is absorbed. Yes a bounce can happen but every impact has a different "vector" of impact. I'm just simply saying a bounce as in hit the ground become airborne and back to rest on the ground won't occur in every situation. The observed description I have was second hand. I didn't witness it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Well I suppose as long as all we've got are a couple of videos that don't conclusively show anything and conflicting eyewitness accounts, there isn't any point in saying anything in particular happened or didn't happened.

Well I suppose as long as all we've got are a couple of videos that don't conclusively show anything and conflicting eyewitness accounts, there isn't any point in saying anything in particular happened or didn't happened.

Correct. Now if only the news media would understand that (of course then they wouldn't earn any money and go bankrupt, but still).

Or we can say that based on the available evidence, A, B, C, and D are all things that might have happened, but E, F and G are definitely inconsistent with what we already know and therefore can already be ruled out.

Then we can gather more evidence and see which of the possibilities we have left can be ruled out, until we only have one scenario left, which is then the most likely explanation of all the evidence. Which is of course how accident investigations work.

 

The video you posted is not inconsistent with the eyewitness statement you quoted, it doesn't contradict it, but neither does it show exactly what was described, mainly because it doesn't show very much. E.g. it doesn't show the landing gear, so we can't use to the video to tell which gear hit first. That means we can't use the video to prove that part of the eyewitness statement wrong, but we can't use it to prove it right either. Therefore the default position would be to accept the eyewitness statement as probably correct and see whether it matches the evidence from the weight on wheels sensors and accelerometers, once those are available.