Makes me wonder about whether putting gear down is really the best option in an emergency landing? I mean doesn't gear increase the chances of damage since you fully expect them to rip off after hitting the ground? Could rupture fuel tanks, fuselage? I think manufacturers reason for having them down is that they would soften the impact somewhat.

The act of ripping the undercarriage off absorbs energy - so worth keeping the gear down from a physics perspective

I'm guessing it was the corn fields close to the airport that attracted the birds in the first place. I'd wager they have had a few strikes from this airfield at the appropriate times of the season but a 'Sully' strike that takes out both engines shortly after takeoff? ...that the pits!

Now I don't want to take away from the crew skills that got everyone on the ground safely, but I suspect these guys didn't have time to make any significant decisions. Sully did. So he had to make decisions that could have been wrong but ultimately turned out to be right. All under considerable pressure. But for these guys , at 750 ft? there was really only one place they were going and thank God it wasn't into rough ground.!! Still, they pulled off a text book landing, saved everyone's skins and deserve to wear their wings proudly in the future with their Sully like emergency and same outcome.!!

What about the gear up landing? The checklist says gear down by gravity. So I assume the APU (first item on the checklist) doesn't provide power for the hydraulic pump system operating the landing gear? But at 750 feet.did they even go to the checklist? And if they did, would the APU have even been on speed by they time they hit? Would the gear have only been partially down anyway? i'm thinking gear down anywhere other than a runway is going to be a disaster so, maybe these guys deliberately chose not to lower.. I know 'speculation'...'wait till the report comes' out blah blah, but I just am really curious and I'm not actually speculating anything. Just wondering about the configuration possibilities that may have affected the outcome. Kudos to the crew!!

Wonder if there was a brace announcement... if so quite mind boggling that someone was still filming with their phone in 1 hand all the way down. It worked out OK in this case but if I hear brace for impact I couldn't care less about social media fame at that point.

If their altitude was only 750ft, I'd simply say there was no time to run through checklists, considering the low speed and nose up attitude of the plane. Really looking forward to the investigation and also to hear/read from the pilots and why they decided whatever they decided.
But, gear up or down: Great job by them, absolutely no question there.

I don't think any checklists apply when you are 750ft off the ground on take-off with full load of pax, full fuel and both engines out. At the risk of being a backseat driver, I think the decision to keep the LG up was the correct one (if it indeed was a conscious decision). They do absorb the impact energy but only if they are fully down. What happens if the impact catches them in transition, nobody knows. Also, LG down during crash landing increases the chance of flipping the craft.

A.N.C. Look it up.

Checklist
 

Love the people leaving a crash landed aircraft still full of fuel with their handluggage... Time for a central lock on the overhead lockers...

Rant over: great job by the crew :D

Have to disagree....the majority of images currently available of the immediate aftermath seem to show only one person carrying a large bag.

Given the legendary stoicism of most Russians however, I sure some, having seen no immediate danger, would have shrugged and tried to get back on-board to retrieve their luggage before trudging back to the airport to wait for the next flight.

Honestly wonder if the gear being up was good fortune. Landing on a field with gear down increases the risk of fuel tank rupture if there are drainage ditches about, in this case with igniters probably off and no spilled fuel they added to their luck.

That gull looked surprised!

Yeah righto. Make the PA the priority after an total loss of power on the upwind threshold.

You are too kind.

"Shortly after takeoff" could mean 5-10 minutes after (ET302, for example) - a rather different scenario from starting to descend when the gear doors have barely closed, don't you think ?

I'd be interested in the kinematics with respect to the pitch axis of a MLG in soft ground.
Anyone knows any studies or reports?

There is drone footage on YouTube taken after the incident (can't post due to forum rules). Shows a stream / ditch between the field which the aircraft went over. Wonder if this was why the crew didn't deploy the landing gear!

They will have used up several months supply of luck. I wonder how much previous glider experience the pilot had? He's got a few minutes now. :)

Are you serious? All they had time for was "fly the aircraft" at which they did a great job.