Non-stabilized approach in Tahiti. Now, that could be down to airline culture.
Harsh words backed by very ittle facts, hey ?
Then a two paragaphs out of a 75 page report... If a newspaper had published your post, you'd have the whole population of this site on your back, claiming "journo blabber".
As with most incidents/accidents, the causes are a-plenty :
- An unknown feature of the 744 VNAV/VOR auto flight system which triggers GA thrust when the aircraft goes under the MDA, even on manual/FD approach. That Go Around is only identified by a "Thrust Ref" FMA annunciation.
That feature, at that time was unknown by the flightv deck population, including Boeing instructors.
- A very poorly managed crew communication : the handling pilot, fighting the throttles didn't convey his problem to his colleague...
- When the throttles were released after touch-down, the handling pilot only managed reverse on #2, 3 and 4, while the #1 escaped him and went full thrust (107 % N1). That was only identified as "no reverse on #1". Again, a CRM concern.
- No spoiler and no auto-brake due to the #1 throttle position
- The airplane veered right out of the runway at 60 kt and stopped in the water...The #2, 3 and 4 engines were flooded and stopped. #1 couldn't be cut off due to loss of electrical power.
On the subject of un-stabilised approaches, AF recorded at the time a rate of 3.38 % on all approaches with rather stringent criteria for the definition.
It is also to be noted that the incident happened when the population of three different airlines (Air France, Air Inter and UTA) had to be integrated and that the catastrophic economical situation of the new AF wasn't the best for serene aircrews...
Back to the topic .
Looking at the pictures of the latest incident, as the aircraft came to a stop just past of the high-speed turn-off B2 and that only the nose gear was in the grass, my opinion is about a tiller problem. Nothing more and I bet a beer on it.