Doubtless they do, but we're not yet privy to that information.

The sources that support the undershoot theory don't seem to agree on how the aircraft ended up pointing away from the airport (we're told that it could have spun round 180° when it hit the water, or that it might have been gradually blown round by the wind).

A photo of the aircraft on final approach, or in the water on the runway heading would back up that theory, but we haven't seen any yet.

Captains should never talk to the CEO after an accident who then authorise press releases about landing short.

A landing 737 has an awful lot of momentum. As that's scrubbed off hitting the water, it would be almost inconceivable that some of it isn't converted to angular momentum in the process.

If it's an undershoot, doesn't it represent either remarkable flying or remarkable luck that it didn't break up? Although, one of the photos suggests to me it's lost its port winglet.

You can always believe the press, right? Some are reporting it was take off that ended badly. I remain to be convinced. :sad:

You just gotta love pprune, 3 pages so far just trying to establish if it was an overshoot or undershoot! :rolleyes:

From ASN:

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20180928-0

Photos on AvHerald show the aircraft floating tail down with wings under the surface; rear door obscured by a raft but must be nearly submerged. Exit would have been only via the front doors and perhaps the over-wing exits. Just as well there were only 47 on board.
Accident: Niugini B738 at Chuuk on Sep 28th 2018, touched down in sea short of runway

Plane crashes near U.S. Navy team, which helps with rescue
 

If they couldn't see where they were going at 2.2nm to run then obviously they shouldn't have ended up where they did. And if they could see, they shouldn't have ended up where they did either.

Arguably that's one of the strengths of PPRuNe, where you get professionals who are rightly sceptical about accepting blindly what the mainstream media publish.

Particularly when, as in this case, you get conflicting reports in the press that it was an undershoot, an overrun or even (according to some reports) an RTO - so they can't all be right. :ugh:

I'm just waiting for someone to post the other sage advice we always get following an incident: "we should wait for the investigation report and avoid speculating in the meantime" - where's the fun in that ? :O

100 feet of water,should have answers soon,U.S. Navy UCT 2 Renders Assistance Following Plane Crash in Chuuk > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display

The Airport also reported this as an undershoot. Considering the reported weather and the net result, could this be shades of Westjet at St Maartens?

One of the reasons so many passengers might have survived before the airline sank into 100 feet of water is the quick work of Navy sailors.
Members of Underwater Construction Team 2 were conducting operations near the lagoon and sailors immediately began shuttling passengers and crew to shore using their inflatable boat, according to the 30th Naval Construction Regiment.
The crew’s chief hospital corpsman rendered medical aid to at least one passenger who sustained minor injuries, Navy officials added.
UCT 2 is working to revamp Chuuk’s wharves and restore the coral reefs that have been damaged by boat anchors.



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....082446839d.jpg


https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...e=facebook.com

maybe, maybe not. The GPS 04 Chart vs the NDB 04 chart raise the possibility that the crew were relying on the VNAV with a hard altitude at the MAP (HAMAX). That would be the codeing of the approach in the nav DB. The MAP is 2.2nm from the approach end of the runway. The lowest minima is not coincident with the normal continuous descent path to the runway for a 3 degree path. The lower MMA places the aircraft below the 3 degree path. (this minima has a required gradient in the event of a missed approach). In reduced visibilty, a crew that is busy and passes MMA with surface contact (and visibility...) needs to adjust the ROD or level off in order to intercept the correct path. The vis requirement would give the runway in sight at MMA, but any delay in recognition of the low path from the reduced MMA could put the aircraft close to the water.

Have seen a few too many of these recently, may be time for a change to some of our approaches.

Getting the job done...
 

Having flown for many years in the Pacific, the reality is that sometimes the lines between IFR and VFR gets blurred...it shouldn't,..but it does....it's how you get the job done. 99.9% of the time it's fine because you use local knowledge and experience to achieve the result. Not ideal but it's the reality. If you've flown in the Pacific or Africa, you'll know what I mean. …...from the photo in the (2) above post, look how low the cloud base is.... suspect these guys were trying to get under the base when they hit the water ?

just to be clear are we clear now that this was an undershoot into the sea on approach to 04, ie the pics fooled us into thinking it had run off the end of 22? They say never believe a sailor but I'll make an exception this time.

A quick Google finds rather more hits for "Air Niugini Chuuk overrun" than it does for "Air Niugini Chuuk undershoot", but that may well be because the earlier reports tended towards the former.

As for the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports, they are equally inconclusive.

I'm guessing that, given the airline, the FDR may well go to Australia for analysis. If that's the case, we will know one way or the other soon enough.