I understand that most large aircraft do a data dump to the company after landing, for many reasons, but including to monitor unsafe practices such as unstabilised approaches and heavy landings.

That being the case, why would the pilots continue knowing that even if they successfully managed to stop it on the runway, they may well have to account for their actions?

Could be that the operator Amazon uses doesn't work that way, but I'd be surprised?

I think in some cases, there is a human "pressure" to perform and think that as being highly trained, professional pilots/co-pilots you can recover from every poor/bad situation, in all circumstances.

Had they gone around (assuming they had no technical problems with the aircraft), it probably would have resulted in a different, more positive outcome.

With the freight companies, I can imagine they are also on a tight timeline to turn the aircraft around rapidly, although in the day in question that flight departed on time and was arriving approx 25mins early according to FR24 data, so a G/A would not have impacted the schedule I would have thought.

Its a bizarre set of circumstances and probably another example of not just one factor in play, but multiple factors combined which led to the crash. Hopefully the CVR and FDR will provide more info to the NTSB.

It looked like a completely unstable approach to me, with a nose down pitch attitude, and way too much speed. I am no pilot, but it looked for all the world like a go around before they had got anywhere near the runway threshold. Of course, I do not know if other stuff was going on with the aircraft at the time, but it looked to me like the pilot was pushing the nose down to lose altitude.

7 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

It looked like a completely unstable approach to me, with a nose down pitch attitude, and way too much speed. I am no pilot, but it looked for all the world like a go around before they had got anywhere near the runway threshold. Of course, I do not know if other stuff was going on with the aircraft at the time, but it looked to me like the pilot was pushing the nose down to lose altitude.

I have to wonder why a 'heavy' was directed to land on that particular runway in what were clearly quite unstable sub-tropical conditions, when I would have assumed it would normally be allocated one of the longer runways.

I saw a real-world pilot's assessment of the landing, and he indicted exactly as you have said - an overly fast and unstable approach onto the shortest runway, which should have triggered a go-around before touch-down - assuming no technical issues with the aircraft. Crossing the runway threshhold more than 30kts over the normal speed was indicative of a risky landing on a short runway. The aircraft floated and rose a little before the nose wheel touched down, followed much later by the first of the main gear, but the left gear hung in the air for a considerable further distance, preventing activation of the spoilers and brakes. Another factor too, was that there could have been a wind shift before landing, resulting in a partial tail wind component contributing to the instability; but again, you would think that might also trigger a go-around.

In the end, the aircraft floated way too far for way too long, with only one main gear set (RHS) on the runway, so the brakes were ineffective and the aircraft was still doing approx 100kts when it ran out of runway. It also appeared that the reverse thrust may not have activated, even after all the gear was on the tarmac.

The result, for five or more innocent people and their families, was a terrible tragedy.

It looks like there are facts that anyone who watches the videos can see are beyond doubt.
Too fast, too late to touch down and no hope of stopping within the runway.

The rest is idle speculation, which helps no one, least of all the five who were killed and the
five who were injured.

Wait and see is a far better game to play, I think.
YMMV, of course.

Could certainly have been a case of "get-there-itis".

It will be interesting to hear the cockpit voice recording, as to whether a go-around was discussed, or if they mentioned a tailwind, etc.

My main concern is why the Left Main Landing Gear looked all discombobulated as it was coming down...

🤔

Well, here you go. Looking like some really poor decisions by one or possibly both pilots, not a mechanical issue.

Summary of the pilot discourse on the internet.

Pilot rejects bad/dangerous ATC instruction: "Yes PIC does what is required for the safety of the airplane, we are in control of the aircraft not anyone else"

Pilot cowboys the worst approach I've ever seen: "Well lets not rush to judgement, they might have been tired, maybe the company didn't want them to be late. There are deeper reasons for this"

Excellent analysis by an excellent aviation journalist. I recommend you review all his previous videos on this specific topic. All round on his YouTube channel. YMMV TANSTAAFL.

-B

Edited September 10Sep 10 by btacon

Captain Steeve (ex-Navy and commercial pilot with a YT channel) counted Eleven (11) missed mandatory go-arounds on that approach.

So Amazon have decided to pause operations with 21 Air, the operator of the flight.

Other reports indicate crew were attempting a go- around.