This could be a very reasonable assumption.

Looks like some serious damage near the tail skid also which would indicate most likely.

AP report 282 passengers, 18 crew, no fatalities.

@ImPlaneCrazy

Looks like they were evacuating people right next to the wing that exploded too - if indeed it was the wing, rather than the centre fuel tank exploding.

Still can't believe everyone survived this.

Which is the most important detail.

If indeed it dropped like a rock from height > 100ft yet the cabin integrity was assured, all pax and crew evacuated .. Well.. god bless the engineers of this aircraft...

It is indeed almost miraculous (if confirmed) - but if nothing else reinforce the very good survivability track record of the 777.

Absolutely. The BA fuel-starvation crash always surprises me for the same reason.

Seems a solid old girl the 777

This is the ATC from the link above, very hard to hear much at all, other than EK521 clear to land (response from crew)

Do we know (hopefully X infinity) that EVAC was complete?

If this is correct, it would be very strange of the TWR having to remind the crew to lower the gear.
Perhaps ATC told the aircraft to go around because the gear was never extended in the first place?

Night turnaround. 4 hr sectors. Landing at 12:45pm local. Hmmm....

I would never have guessed anything could go wrong on one of those lovely Annex 1 flights.

:yuk:

That crew were on a 29 hour layover in TRV after deadheading over on the 2nd.

Not to mention Asiana's cartwheel in SFO.

Surface temperature 49degs, QNH 993 - what kind of density altitude is that? I'm not Triple7 qualified, but what are the operating limits for the type?
Add windshear, a go-around - that's an unfortunate mix.

Heard from someone on the ramp that it appeared that the gear was down, aircraft touched down well after midpoint with very high nose up attitude and the other main collapsed on touch down. Very early to speculate but WS?

Yeah, and that complete tw@t on the Clinton News Network: Richard Quest!

Any chance that we just wait a little bit and find out what happened before we start throwing the stones?

Maybe it took them a little too long to figure out what the GPWS was on about at 500 feet.

Not throwing stones. I think the use of exceptions to FTL's to squeeze the hours on some night t/a's is outrageous - I still think that.

But if troff is correct, not a factor in this accident. Good to hear.

Aviation Herald report:-

Also reported Wind shear, dust clouds on approach, 11kt tailwind.

and why should you attempt to land?

Still amazed everyone is ok - every airline should get some 777's in there fleet!

New photo - still going down runway

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co7iMGNWcAAVs_7.jpg

NB the 275 pob figure was revised to 282+18, so the rest of the AH report may be similarly flawed.

I wonder where Aviation Herald got their info from?

....attempted to go around from low height. The aircraft however did not climb, but after retracting the gear touched down on the runway and burst into flames...

gear up before positive rate of climb? If that's right, then surely that's wrong.

49° were measured after the incident happened I guess

SP 03/08/2016 10:48->
SPECI OMDB 031048Z VRB06KT 6000 NSC 41/24 Q0992 WS ALL RWY
TEMPO=
SA 03/08/2016 10:00->
METAR OMDB 031000Z 11018KT 5000 BLDU NSC 49/05 Q0993 WS ALL
RWY TEMPO 35015KT 1500=
SA 03/08/2016 09:00->
METAR OMDB 030900Z 11021KT 3000 BLDU NSC 49/07 Q0993 WS ALL
RWY TEMPO 35015KT 1500=
SA 03/08/2016 08:00->
METAR OMDB 030800Z 14012KT 100V180 6000 NSC 48/09 Q0994 WS
ALL RWY TEMPO 35015KT 4000 DU=
SP 03/08/2016 07:49->
SPECI OMDB 030749Z 14012KT 110V180 6000 NSC 47/09 Q0994 WS
ALL RWY TEMPO 35015KT 4000 DU=
SA 03/08/2016 07:00->
METAR OMDB 030700Z 06007KT 360V100 8000 NSC 44/10 Q0995 NOSIG=

Regardless of what actually happened to cause the incident this statement is quite true.... the Cabin Crew quite clearly did an absolutely sterling job in getting everybody out of there alive.

They did a job to be proud of Today. What happened up front we will find out in time but I don't think the CC's actions can be criticized in any way given the outcome.

approximately 4500 ft

282+18 reported - is 16 CC (I guess this was a 2 pilot flight ?) typical ?

Thanks
We will never know as my perfectly reasonable analysis of visual clues was deleted.
My point was - it does not look like a gear collapse as first reported, rather a gear-up landing, which has now been reported. Thank you over-zealous mods.

Avionyx,
You are quite right about the cc crew actions. They also saved the pax.( all of them), in YYZ a few years ago. I find that many of my colleagues are quick to speak in a derogatory manner about the cc, belittle their roles, question their abilities. When the real test came in the aforementioned accidents, they not only rose to the challenge, but shone!

As a soon to retire Professional Pilot of 29 years, ( 1 to go), I have nothing but respect for their abilities in these incredibly difficult situations. Not to mention, what they put up with during the course of their regular work.

When I saw the pressure, temp 49deg, and the tailwind .......I'm so glad it ended ok

I sure hope there wasn't any Live Animals in the hold.

Presumably from the ATC transmissions, which reported going around and 'gear up'.

Good to see that log0008 and others still not crediting pictures.:=

We all know fatigue is cumulative so the rosters for the previous 3 months would tell a better story.
Don't forget bunk time and ground duties on top of 100 hours a month.

Can we stop with the tailwind? Landed on 12L @ 0841Z.
Wind @ 0800Z was 140/12 Varying 100 to 180.
Wind at 0900Z was 110/21.

So, predominantly from the SE with a bit of variation either side of the r/w axis.

BUT with WS reported and circa 45 C and low QNH....

The words GoAround,Flapsxx, Gear Up might have been said but if the mode doesn't engage for whatever reason....... JetStar tried it and got away with it. Recognition of positive climb before the pilot selects the gear up works well.

gear up before positive rate of climb? If that's right, then surely that's wrong.

Interested Passenger, FYI, in a G/A situation with W/S there is no configuration change till well clear of the W/S

Crash of emirates 777
 

Yes.but something doesnt fit in because they are supposed to retract the gear only after a positive rate of climb is verified.

And plus,if they attempted go around and still hit the ground that might mean that they stalled out or didnt follow correct procedures

https://youtu.be/12XAQf6u1kI

Clearly shows engine on top of the wing