Risky, lucky
Obviously can't comment at this stage cause of the first landing attempt anomalies, but clearly the FD judged it sufficiently "hard" to initiate a GA, as per SOP.
Don't get though why, 12 min after GA, they subsequently risk aborting the 2nd approach on 05 for another 8 minutes to reposition for 35L. If not from the FD, surely from the cabin all indications of a persisting engine fire and (structural) wing damage, should have prompted the crew to land ASAP, no matter RWY width and length.
On turning tight and short for the 2nd 05-approach they may have been too high and fast. But why turning in so short for this second approach?
Given the state of the A/C, why not make a much more wide and gentle right 180° after GA and with another gentle more or less 90° right turn position directly for 35L?
Hindsight probably, I realise, but it raises at least some doubts about the awareness on the FD. Not to mention that after the aborted 2nd approach on 05 the A/C made another couple of very tight turns to reposition for 35L.
Risky, lucky.....