Remember what that guy told you in flying training.... Good landings come from good approaches.
The evidence is mounting here to suggest a grossly mishandled/rushed approach followed by a heavy landing + bounce. There may have been an attempt to GA (flaps around F15), or the flaps may have been at the maximum the extent they could manage due to excess speed on approach. In any case one good bounce on the nose gear precipitated separation and the energy/flap profile on reaching the upwind end of the runway precluded further flight.
All seemed to be well in R/t exchanges prior to landing with no suggestion of an abnormal config. Perhaps they were so laid back that they got F15 out + gear down and then realised the mistake when they tried to flare. It seems the CVR may be corrupt as the Aussies have sent it back to Honeywell for deeper attempts to salvage any recording so we may never know the mood on the FD prior to landing. The FDR data thankfully seems to be intact and has been communicated back to the Indonesians.
Not much longer to wait I think.
Edited to add:... If this turns out to be a flap assymetric lock-out that went unnoticed by the crew at some stage during decel/flap deployment then I think Boeing will have another lawsuit on their hands in the manner of Helios.
In the 737 there is NO centralised warning or attention-getter to the crew if the TE flaps fail to extend during deployment. The procedure relies totally on the pilots noticing the demanded flap position being at odds with that selected. In other words it is trapped entirely by pilot verbal SOP discipline.
The consequence would be the operation of the aircraft, close to the ground, at a speed well below that required for the demanded flap config..... that would do it. Another fine example of how not to design an airliner!
Last edited by Magplug; 15th Mar 2007 at 13:23.