Right into the storm!
 

Is this acceptable?

This will be a full stop landing! - YouTube

Personally I would have held off.

Perfect place for microbursts AND he was low on the approach, 4 reds on finals. Unless there was a dire fuel emergency there was no reason not to hold off unitl the cell went through.

But we don't get the whole story from a YouTube video.

Going around? Rather not I think.
 

And what about a possible go-around? Would have been 'interesting' in these conditions.

What type of airplane was it...?

Fokker 100

Wirbelsturm - totally agree but if you are going to make an approach make the chap in the RHS put the camera away and concentrate on what they are paying him to do. Looks great on youtube but not so good at the accident investigation.

I've seen this one before. The FOs WX radar pointing at the ground and displaying predominantly ground returns whilst flying towards a CB.

Airline WX radar training has been seriously lacking in both airlines I worked for.

Have a look at the tilt. That was the TS that it was painting! Nine times out of ten they will get away with a landing like that but as AF found out in Toronto one day its going to bite you. Better off having the fuel to hold and wait for it to pass. Like some have said if you do have to go-around on short final you might just take on a whole new world of pain.

Schoolboy stuff.... wait for it to go through or divert... if you don't have the fuel to do that then that is your fault... these are the decisions that us captains are paid to make... does no-one remember Dallas ? Obviously these two fools did not.

I'm pretty convinced that the camera was secured and not hand held during the later phases of the approach and landing. These guys fly in that kind of c**p almost every day in these countries. I'd say that they have more local wx experience than some of u 6 flights a month long haul drivers :oh::E

Seriously??Your post was obviously ironic so im gonna keep my mouth :mad: as I may get temporarly banned..:E

Only one bit. I must be losing my touch ;)

Wirbelsturm . . .
 

Weather minimums required this to be an ILS approach, (ILS Rwy-06 minimums 800 meters). Keep in mind that the ILS electronic glide path at many airports is not always precisely aligned with the VASI/PAPI, it often varies, as may be apparent in this approach to Rwy-06 at HAV.

Before turning "red," the left outer PAPI light in fact, remained illuminated white until 150 feet on short final, which technically is within visual glide-path limits of narrow body airplanes as this Fokker. The R/A altitude announced "50" (feet) crossing the threshold, and that's not "low." (B747 threshold crossing heights at standard ILS installations is typically 53 feet).

On this required ILS approach, there was no (below) "glide-slope" warning, so the flight path must have been within the limits of the electronic glide path.

As a side note: Why would you give preference to the visual glide path guidance on short final during an ILS approach when on profile?

Especially if it were a coupled approach, on-glide-path, . . . would you suddenly go-around if you caught a visual glimpse of four "reds" on a PAPI, on short final at 100, or 150 feet? :ooh:

I didn't realise that some countries have different thunderstorms to other countries.