Not suggesting fault on the part of the Pilot/s decision making, etc. However if we are interested in identifying near misses and improving outcomes, it should be investigated.

From the armchair, it looks like the aircraft entered an upset. That may have been due to incorrect technique in the application of rudder? Standards should be improved in many operations in hand flying and best practice. Thats apart from Pilots taking undue risks as a result of lack of awareness, poor training or commercial pressure

Can these changing conditions be reproduced in the Sim?

Dogma, what is there to investigate, and to what purpose?
The debate would be on a point of judgement; a continued landing in the same circumstances may have involved higher risk, so the appropriate ‘bounced recovery’ and GA was the better option. Yet a small change in the wind gust or a few seconds of flight path would present a completely different situation. Is it possible to predict that; I doubt it. (Hence you cannot simulate the appropriate level of fidelity G-CPTN)

How can you improve the outcome of a correctly executed procedure; can you better manage the risk, etc. Celebrate the success, reinforce the choice of a GA in similar situations.
If you wish to judge the choice in commencing the approach then you must consider the view of the Captain, the information available, at that time, skill, qualification and the many other variables. The human is usually very good at this type of judgement, superior to automation; and yet the same human is particularly bad in judging events after the fact, generating wild conclusions based on hindsight and constructing ‘error’, whereas the behaviour was as required for the situation.

Armchair views may be the greater risk to the safety in industry because they may covertly influence crews towards courses of action to mitigate media reaction vice managing the risks in flying.
You cannot conclude a ridiculous view of an upset, or inappropriate use of control; you were not there, did not have the same perception as the crew, or experience in judging situations.
You must start with the view that the crew choice and actions were as required; the crew were doing their best in the conditons, which from the video appeared to be by the book. Well done that crew.

Textbook stuff from someone on top of their game.
Well done chaps (or chapesses):ok:

Having been encouraged to post in other than Jet Blast, I will opine here on this after doing a little (not a lot) of research composed of watching the three vids avail, and gathering the weather for the location at the time. Being a high time private/comm pilot, with a flight history in windy areas like N TX, and eastern CO, this is my take.

Based on the underside look of those clouds, along with the clear evidence in the background of the vid, there is moist unstable air in the area at the time of the appr. Combine this with the reported wind of 270@26G46 also indicates that the wind conditions were quite dramatic when the gust is 20 up from the sustained, and the sustained is rather high as well.

Having flown much of my time in TW aircraft(yes, I know - has nothing to do with airliners) we have been taught the cross-controlled appr with upwind wing low, and opposite rudder. Airline operators apparently either HATE this method, or they are untrained, or the company doesn't allow it because it tilts the SLF in an awkward way, hanging as they would be from the side of their belts. Understandable. In my little cloth plane, in these conditions, I would have been fully cross controlled, and trying to touch the right main and stick it on. More than likely after having stuck said right tire to the ground I would realize the folly of winding up in the grass, or a ditch, and power my way out of there and go somewhere else.

Airliner? The kick-out method is accepted process, and damn the side-loading of the gear. Can it be done cleanly with min side loading? Sure, in fairly smooth sustained wind. But in conditions with G46? Oh he-ull no. In Brit-speak I would say this would be a rather 'sporting' attempt. No fault, no foul, no issue with what I see here having the guys in the pointy end getting out of Dodge(Americanism from the old west) nee Salzburg and heading somewhere else.

The meatsacks all walked off the plane, the plane apparently can be used again, and if there is an inquiry, and I were in the pointy end I would simply say that conditions were beyond SAFE margin when WE made our attempt, notwithstanding any previous, or later landings. It was a semi-unstabilized approach, leading to a unstabilized flare, leading to an unstabilized touchdown, and we performed a textbook go around. Have a nice day. Skin, tin, ticket all secured, sadly the cabin creatures had to make other arrangements, but somedays one is the bug, and somedays one is the windscreen.

We must also consider the experience of the crew, Pilots who regularly fly into "interesting" locations will cope with these conditions rather better than those from the parts of the world where landings are almost always benign.
Personally I would probably have thrown it away a bit earlier but wibble flip, I was not there on the day.

A simple TOGA? The TOGA may be well timed with the rebound, but this issue is not about getting it climbing away again, it's what happened to create the need.

Being a dinosaur I keep shtum for most of the time, but I'd like to know just what vertical g was registered upon impact.

I have run the link many, many times, and still the groundspeed shrieks out at me. Not having that kinetic energy in the bank is asking for . . . well, what they got.

I'm surprised by the reported wind angle, but if the wind was fairly consistent from the west and the runway was 33, then a sudden gust from 20 to mid forties does create a demanding challenge, but not one that allows the shadowed starboard wing to be bullied by the added ground-lift under the port wing. That should have been fully anticipated.

I have a bad feeling the close monitoring of pilot's actions - in almost any unusual scenario these days - is becoming a very counterproductive routine. I picked the word routine with some care. I suppose these days even a tad of crossing up to counter the crosswind would be considered a cardinal sin. I rather think the SLF would prefer a touch of 'side' to being subject to that kind of thumper.

Textbook!?
That was a save! They were not far away from a pod or wingtip strike (which ever hits first)

I am surprised that no one has pointed out that 33 is a fairly unusual runway. We always use it in the sim, because it is a tricky approach (not as tricky as it used to be when only a circling was published ). At least for us it needs to be demonstrated in the box as a cat c airport, captains only landing. However in real life over many years I have never flown it, the ILS the other end has always been in use. The only plus side is that the missed approach is a lot easier than off the ILS, which again is always practised in the sim.

Watch the video with the audio turned up. A fair amount of wing flex, and audible interior creaking, indicates it was a rough day.

I'm not sure I've every heard that much interior creaking due to turbulence before. It was a challenging approach.

On the NG, Flap 30 gives significantly better handling in strong crosswinds than Flap 40. The FCTM says sideslip only landings should not be attempted in crosswinds above 18kts with Flap 30 due to lack of control authority and pod strike risks.

Someone with a camera on DUB 16 in similar winds would probably get some pretty exciting footage too.

Wind 270/26G46 gives a gustiness factor of 77% which is quite high - then add the local topography.

Gustiness factor

From the video of the wing from inside the plane the touchdown was not that hard, which suggests he had decided to go around well before it 'landed'.

SLF, but I've been in planes that landed with no drama when the wing was working much harder than that on the approach - and enjoyed the marriage of engineering and art that makes it possible.

I thought that a late go-around could result in a touch and go simply because it takes time for the engines to spool up and develop thrust?

On most jet transports you can go around up to the point when reverse thrust is selected - so the wheel(s) could be on the ground before initiating a go around.

Also add a330, a380 and 738 to that list

Those winds are the trickier approach onto 33 make for an interesting day out.

Did anyone else think the Ground Speed looked pretty high from the videos?

What! In excess of walking speed you mean? Okay, I'm being sarcastic, but GS high?

And what does that mean? One has no choice about the TOTAL energy put into countering a crosswind but on the early jet transport aircraft just a tad of side really does effect a lot of stabilisation.

It seems GS high.
See an external video from other guy filming in HD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbUbI9ufDiM

Certainly, there's a moment when they are still over the grass when it looks alarmingly like it is being accelerated by a TWC, (dangerous in its own right) but when the viewpoint is as the OP, then I still think there's insufficient kinetic energy to give safe reserves.

It really does need recorded data to be sure, though I don't know if this is one of the parameters directly sensed or even deducible.

excellent video of the challenging APP and conditions of the day
looks like the field was right on the edge of a major downpour