Two things now seems clearer to me watching this video from a previously unseen angle.
Firstly the cause of the bounce now seems clearer, the last few feet of the approach seems to have been made with appreciable flare as might be ecpected, the nose-up attitude is quite noticeable until very close indeed to touchdown (8sec) but then the the nose pitches down to an attitude that is all but flat and - correct me if I'm imagining this - the main gear appears to rise a few feet as the attitude flattens (as it would with a rapid pitch down and gear behind the c of g) the aircraft drops hard onto three points resulting in the first bounce (10sec). The reason I don't think it made contact with the runway (though it must have been very close indeed) at 8 sec is that there is no sign of tyre smoke which is clearly visible at 10sec as it 'arrives' for the first bounce. That rather suggests it was carrying too much speed as has been proposed before. I can see no indication of any power being added later but then how could anyone see that? The divergent bounces are an all-too familair process of events in a situation where an immediate go-around is not instigated on the firt bounce.
Secondly the evacuation. From early on in the sequence we can see volumes of smoke coming from door 1L whereas previously we had seen none from the original filming aspect which only showed 1R - which appeared to be smoke free. Clearly the fuselage was breached early on in the evacuation sequence and was filled with smoke almost from the start, smoke tthat was blown by the wind passing across the lobby so it only exited via door 1L. Conditions even in the front of the cabin must have been barely survivable almost from the start.
One can only surmise at this point how much the blowtorch effect fom engine(s) left running might have exacerbated a burnthrough or whether breaches occurred during the landing itself, for instance from overrunning the detatched stbd gear during the groundloop.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 16th May 2019 at 13:48.