I put very little weight on the "direction the aircraft is pointed" in the after-accident photos. If one goes back to the first still photos of Sully on the Hudson, that aircraft has almost
immediately rotated 90° to point its nose at Manhattan, while the pax are still lined up on the wings, and before the (quite rapid) rescue response has arrived. One gets the feeling that some here would consider that strong evidence that Sully touched down in New Jersey, and slid into the river.
Similarly, many insisted that LionAir 904
must have been an overrun, from its final postion with tail to the runway. That turned out to be - wrong. LionAir landed short (interestingly, on an NPA through a tropical rain column that obscured the runway) and rotated 180° while bobbing in the water/on the rocks. In similar conditions (NPA/rain) WestJet/St. Maarten avoided the same by only 20 meters or so.
(Coincidentally, the LionAir 738's tail broke away in the same location that the Air Niugini plane shows those skin creases. I seem to see an little excess "whaleback" to the fuselage roofline of the AN plane in that area, but it could just be telephoto perspective).
AH reports the aircraft "was cleared to land runway 04." Not definitive (source is likely the same airport manager who also said it landed short), but is there
any evidence/suggestion it was cleared to land on 22?
There is also this gentleman, who seems pretty level-headed and knows Micronesia, who says "We came in low - we came in
very low," and mentions he was told they hit the seawall.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...689c913dbd6491
He's not an aviation professional, of course. But the only aviation professionals we've actually heard from are the airport guy and the airline. Both of whom say "landed short, in the water." My guess as to why we haven't heard much further is the 1) Chuuk is not exactly the "news capital of the world," and 2) the folks there don't think there is any mystery - it landed short.