I was just wondering if the seawall could have been missed with less pitch in those final few seconds? Less pitch would have also reduced the forces on the rear paxs on impact.
Glob99
Don't fly much? Lowering the pitch angle would have progressively "unloaded" what lift the wing was producing to increase the rate of descent and impact forces.
Could they have preserved precious speed and extended the glideslope by not pitching up as much, as well as arrest the sink rate a bit?
Could pitching-up less have given them those few extra knots, after they commanded go-around, that would've allowed them to get enough altitude to clear the sea wall?
Wouldn't the pitch-up slow them down more and increase their sink rate?
Or would not pitching-up have made it more likely to hit head on into the seawall/runway?
Actually, I think these are fair questions. They are on the back side of the power curve so the rapid pitch up with late power application might have increased the rate of descent, right? Or was it a quick trade of remaining airspeed for some upward acceleration? Would a somewhat less agressive pitch angle have allowed the tail to clear the seawall to cruise over the runway in ground effect and accelerate to a climbout (perhaps with a tail scrape) or a less hard pancake landing?
Obviously they should have never gotten to the point of being
in extremis in the first place with an apparently fully functional aircraft on a visual approach in CAVOK weather.