hhobbit: Quote:
The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.
Unfortunately this thread has quickly descended into the usual amateur-investigator nonsense.
You have clearly overlooked the fact that undercarriages appear to be in good condition thousands of times every day after 'contact with the ground'. How the hell can you detect that this undercarriage didn't contact the ground from pictures?
How the hell can you conclude that the aircraft 'contacted in present and final attitude'. That is highly improbable amateur speculation.
Who the hell are you to judge that it was a 'botched approach'?
You have provided clear evidence that amateurs should leave it to the professional accident investigators to do their job, rather than spout utter drivel and unfounded nonsense in an attempt to look clever - which, for the record, you don't!
A sad effort of an ad hominem, with no attention paid to the tentative speculatory tone of those words,
They are written with a confidence level of 50% (carefully re-read the wording) which is appropriate with said tone. The remarks are to be interpreted as ruling out a simple hard landing.