In terms of usual safety procedure; if, in fact, a go-around was initiated after a gear-up touchdown, would that not usually result in the aircraft commander announcing an emergency to ATC. And is it conceivable that the pilots were unaware of scraping engine nacelles on the runway? Thanks in advance.

A journalist called Ovais Jafar has just posted on twitter an extract of the audio between ATC and the pilot. It appears they had problems with the landing gear and also lost both engines at the end. This is a longer extract than the earlier transcript and audio posted here. Sorry but I cannot post links here.

The audio is very similar to the edited clip I posted above. It comes from the same LiveATC.net archive recording.

Also the intake nacelles of both engines look very much intact. Can engine scraping of this degree cause loss of oil ? Are there critical components towards the belly of the engines that are susceptible to scraping damage? Thank you.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5df4714d10.jpg

Landing gear clearly down in that clip.

The 'damage' to the underside of the nacelles is consistent with first points of contact gear up at touchdown attitude.

The GPWS 'Too Low Gear' would have been impossible to ignore though.

I would have thought that a subsequent go-around would have resulted in a tail strike.

Post crash fires are not always the result of remaining fuel. In the tragic wreckage site, there's more than likely enough burnable debris to cause significant burning.

Double engine failure due fuel exhaustion is a possibility.

The go-around was stated to be because of an issue extending the nose landing gear. The flight crew did not at any point tell the controller that this issue was resolved. Instead, they declared an emergency and that both engines were out. It's a reasonable question from the controller who knows the context of why they aborted the first approach. It is faster to ask if that's what is happening than to distract the flight crew with specific questions about their configuration.

My question is: Is there any evidence that the aircraft struck the runway on the first attempt other than the unconfirmed photographs showing black marks on the nacelles? I'm not sure which is chicken and which is egg, here.

While i completely understand the human instinct to pull up, I have to wonder if best glide angle would have brought them to the airfield. It seems they were very close.

In short, no. The photographs appear to be genuine, but the origin of the marks are educated speculation at this stage. However a ground strike appears to be the scenario most fitting the known facts at the moment. Suggest you read the Smartlynx 320 accident synopsis: https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd

Just my 2 cents,

Damage under the engines looks more considerable than oil leak and starts too far forward.

Difficult to tell but looks like the drain masts are gone.

As for not noticing the GPWS LG warning, its happened before.

Here's a detail from one of Hamza Omer's widely published pictures of the aircraft, presumably after the first approach. There does appear to be damage from nacelle scrapes and the RAT is indeed deployed.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....989174afa6.jpg

Various sources on social media suggesting GA due to unsafe landing gear and bird strike on the climb out leaving them without thrust. That chimes with the evidence thus far. Either way, not much that could be done in that case with little altitude, no thrust and no options.

While not conclusive, the Mode S altitude readouts referred to in previous posts would support the proposition that the aircraft descended to 0' AAL during the GA.

I'd call BS on the bird-strike. The nacelles do look scraped - and #2 looks worse than #1 with damage externding farther forward, including the lower intake-ring.
It would be interesting to know if the rear fuselage got scraped, too. In any way, the scrape-damage overall seems fairly slight: The nacelles are just held in place by the lower latches and they seem to hold together quite well.
Maybe they really did just barely scrape the runway during a late G/A.


I think they couldn't have made the runway - they probably saw the runway rising in their line of sight and did what most people would do - pull the stick.
The area doesn't look too inviting for a dead-stick landing, so one couldn't really blame them for doing it, given the amount of options...

Given the apparent engine damage and the talk about gear problems - could it be that on initial landing attempt, gear was down but was not locked, resulting in the scrape? If they had a previous indication that the gear might not be locked, could they have come down gently in an attempt to "test" the gear and gone around when it didn't hold? Perhaps they tried to cycle the gear (resulting in the photo as shown) and then lower it again (as the video taken just before crash appears to show gear down. Additional question - would the scrape have been heard on the ATC tape?

Well if he is indeed out of engines I guess this alpha protection max angle...

For armchair interest, I believe if you sort through the ground impact photos you may identify one engine naelle aft of the fan cowl

You can't miss it on an Airbus, there's an additional ECAM master warning for gear not down.

No hydraulics could be a reason. This is a somewhat related read: https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcon...&context=jaaer