You simply cannot on the basis of videos of the plane in the distance know what transpired with the fire fighting. If there was unburnt spilled fuel, and there probably was, a decision has to be made about smothering that with foam before getting closer to the aircraft, because what you don't want to do is park the tender in a pool of fuel which could catch fire. It is also important for the safety of evacuating passengers who can run anywhere, and who may also have been preventing closer access. Pooling fuel could also be the reason for the third tender spraying foam in areas other than on the aircraft.

As for response time, if fire crews were holding in the taxiway around the middle of the runway, and the aircraft ended up at the end of the runway, they had to travel about 2kms to get to it. Assuming an average speed of 80km/hr, which allows for accelerating and decelerating, the time to the aircraft would be 1 min 30 secs following clearance to enter the runway. If the average speed was 70km/hr, the time taken would be 1:43. And unlike the very controlled video being used for comparison, in an actual fire crews have to slow down to assess the situation and quickly decide on and coordinate a first response strategy under extreme stress. This was probably the fire crew's first real life-threatening passenger aircraft fire, and odds are it will be their last, such is the life of airport fire crews. So perhaps don't presume so much.

No it wouldn't. It would require FAA and EASA to state this is the position for ALL airlines flying to and from their jurisdictions.

Add in that Manufacturers retro fit a central locking system on overheads that locks when landing gear down in flight and only released after that by cabin crew at gate.

Sorry to add one more comment about baggage. I haven't flown for years now but I remember 30-40 years ago the size standard was enforced, at least at my local airport CYYZ. There was a metal rectangle representing the width and height of the space under the seat and, if your hand baggage couldn't pass through it, you had to check it in to the baggage hold, even directly from the departure gate. Was that not universally enforced at that time?

That's one heck of a bounce. How about a go-around, followed very quickly by a change of mind?

Disagree entirely. Prospect of 5000 £/€/$ fine and/or 5 years in clink, even if it were to deter just one individual would be worth it IMHO.

It is still fairly common to see those devices in airports. It's pretty uncommon to see them used. The only time I have seen them used in the last decade was by Qantas. I used to fly to Australia out of LAX fairly frequently, either on Qantas, or an a Delta flight that departed about the same time as the Qantas flight from an adjacent gate. They had a size gauge mounted on a scale. One of the gate agents would scan the boarding queue, and if the carry-on looked a bit large (and most do in the US) they would make the passenger fall out and put it in the size gauge. If it didn't fit or was overweight, they had to check it. I would stand there silently applauding.

Complete BS. I fly internationally on 4 leg itineraries regularly. It is entirely possible to check baggage and have it make all your flights.

Was that the ' second landing attempt' ??

The British Airtours flight that had a somewhat similar evacuation issue shows some interesting results when survivor seat locations are calculated as shown on the Wiki page for thes flight BA 28M. An analysis afterwards appeared to show that some people were frozen in their seats while some clambered over the backs of seats and pushed their way out.

Some people 8, 9 and 10 rows behind the over wing exits managed to get out OK whereas some people just two rows away did not. It was suggested at the time that some people had a "survival at any cost" reaction.... which just goes to support what you are saying, one never knows how one might react in such a situation

So a stable approach but at a somewhat higher speed than normal? At least it is to my eye. No PA sounds, no calling for "brace, brace", in other words the crew expected a "normal" precautionary landing following a loss of some power?
That was a very hard touchdown indeed!
Does the video suggest a botched landing due to being forced to land in an uncomfortable "mode", with the prior issues (lightening strike?) only a secondary contributing factor?

This video posted by the Guardian appears to show (at least to me) the engines were producing significant thrust as the aircraft traveled down the runway on fire. I wonder if the PF engaged TOGA after the first bounce. The view starts at 0:15.

There's also a brief shot in the video that appears to show part of the left MLG punched through the wing.

Overweight?

Since this thread started, hundreds of thousands of passengers have flown and arrived safely with their cabin bags. There's an old saying that hard cases make bad law. Jumping around demanding changes to baggage configuration on the basis of one accident is not rational in the hard-headed world of commercial aviation. One could equally argue that rear-facing seats would similarly improve survival statistics - that's not going to happen either. As ever, the times of maximum danger for SLF are the journeys to and from the airport. Life's a risky old business.

Look at the pictures for signs of the gear through the fuel tanks in the wings

I looked at the video I linked above several more times, and the MLG is clearly through the left wing. View at 0:47.
​​​