Myanmar Airlines plane lands on its nose
 

The plane had to fly to burn fuel before landing (it was probably not possible / no option ? to dump the fuel).
People had time at airport to prepare for YouTube video ....but so many emergency vehicles on the video when the plane landed....
Local flights where delayed to and from mandalay during 1h30.

Glad to see a perfect evacuation. Despite the smoke in the cabin, the passengers remained calm, followed the instructions and they evacuated without the carry-on luggage.
See details in this youtube video:
3eUQJ5_iaJ8

By remarkable coincidence, both incidents in Myanmar this week involved aircraft with the registration AGQ...

The Biman Dash 8 that crash landed at Yangon on Wednesday was S2-AGQ, and the Myanmar E190 that landed at Mandalay today without its forward landing gear was XY-AGQ.

Priceless.....

Textbook landing and evacuation. Full marks to both crew and passengers.

Outstanding job. Well done.

I'd like to buy that man a drink. Well done.

Is that the widest runway on the face of the earth or did he manage to slew it into one of the high speed run-offs?

The runway is 61 metres wide...

https://www.ais.gov.mm/eAIP/2017-08-...YMD-en-GB.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandal...tional_Airport

Myanmar Airlines plane lands on its nose?
 

What a party piece, must take some serious amount of reverse thrust and fine judgement! ;)

Hmm. I flew on an E 190 just a week or so ago (first time) and my impression was that it didn't have thrust reversers - would someone who knows care to chime in?

SOP on most operators is to use idle reverse only.
So it makes sure it's there if you need it...

The E-Jets do have reversers (rear part of cowl moving backwards) which increase deceleration markedly, but they seem to be closed. Might be a deliberate omission under the circumstances, QRH doesn't advise against use, but with very good brakes and the drag from the nose scraping, they just might have elected to take one variable out.

No fuel dumping ability is confirmed.

Yes, I know. But the sealed surface where it stopped seems to be much wider than that.
It's a bit much to expect a perfect centreline landing but using the evacuees for informal scaling, it seems that the distance from the wing tip and particularly from the door to the edge of the runway is somewhat greater than 30 metres.
And yet, there is an emergency vehicle parked, on concrete, some distance the other side of the other wingtip.

It's a long runway (14,000 ft) with a high-speed taxiway around the 8,000 ft mark.
I couldn't help but wonder whether he'd felt confident enough of steering control (brakes) to jink it to the right in an effort to leave the runway clear.

I doubt that he'd want to use the reversers or brakes too heavily as that would just put more weight on the nose.
The scraping sound and showers of sparks emanating from just under your butt must be a bit off-putting.

Does anyone have any information of where the aircraft finally came to a stop?

Speculations
 

He got the lady down, all are off her without injuries, and still people trying to find what the pilot did wrong?
nothing to speculate or rumours about this one...wait for the final report.
Is the width of the runway so important?

Some people can see criticism where none exists. Fragile ego?

I just perceived that (it looked like) the paved surface was extraordinarily wide.
This lead me to think that the pilot may have used differential braking to try to edge the beast over and into one of the high-speed taxi-ways.
That's not a criticism. I was just asking if that was the case, or not.
Asking a question is clarification; not speculation

Looking a little harder and at a few more photos, I now don't think that to be the case anyway.
It's probably just a camera perspective thing.

Assigning the concrete slabs 10m x 10m then he's probably not that far off the centreline.
And taking an angle onto the main terminal in the background he has probably pulled up at about the 4800 ft mark.

hardly a fragile ego from a slf...as my id makes quite clear