So, what would you say caused that damage?
A good default stance to take in situations like this (especially so soon after a tragedy) is that the pilot and crew were likely fully capable and well-aware of what they were doing.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine
Initial speculation (because that's all anything will be for weeks at the very least) and comments from other A320 pilots indicate what likely happened is they were attempting an intentional gear up landing, were too fast and burned up too much runway, and attempting a go-ahead. Raising the nose can cause the rear to hit the ground if you're close enough, and this would explain the charring on the bottom of the engine nacelles.
But during takeoff, the data shows the flight jumping from 0 to 1000 ft in a single measurement, so it's probably not as robust and granular as we might hope.
Page 17 shows ~5000 lb/hr at mid weight:
Longer if they're having problems turning the plane due to hydraulic issues.
Isn’t it considered good policy to redirect after a few aborted landings?
(Not a Pilot).
Generally there are alternate airports chosen for if a plane can't land at its desired destination + fuel for multiple aborted landings
If weather is below minimums.
But an airliner doing more than 1 go-around in good weather is something that I've never heard of - it means the pilots don't know how to control airspeed.
Because airplanes land on their main (back wheels) first, the nosewheel is not considered very important, and the incident is considered to be very survivable.
However, in foreign countries, there can be a greater fear of career repercussions for damaging equipment or delaying flights. This was also seen in the SFO Asiana accident that a foreign crew just fell apart in an atypical scenario:
Once in a while in the US you hear of a pilot trying to land firmly to snap the nosewheel into position, but it would be unusual for them to take off and try it again, esp. with passengers.
Some factors are: the pilot doesn't trust the gear indicators for some reason, or they decide burning off fuel before landing is safer, or the airport doesn't have adequate firefighting equipment or a nearby hospital.
Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot, small airplane maintenance test pilot.
“We are proceeding direct, sir — we have lost engine,” a pilot can be heard saying.
“Confirm your attempt on belly,” the air traffic controller said, offering a runway.
“Sir - mayday, mayday, mayday, mayday Pakistan 8303,” the pilot said before the transmission ended.
Certainly the fatality count will rise, but with modern planes survival tends to be more about escaping the post crash fire. If >50% of the passengers and crew live, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
Good news is that crashes on landing tend to involve a lot less fuel, which should improve survival chances significantly.
Is he really lucky? Any person taking part in plane crash is unlucky in my view. Also "survived" does not yet mean he is unhurt.
But I wrote that idea very early after the crash. I didn't expect that so many survived a plane crash, even into 4 houses. Now it became clear that many survived. Almost a miracle to me. Very lucky.
My initial idea was some dust in the engines, because that was the very first flight after the lockdown. Bad maintenance.
So yeah, if he was in business class, I don't think it'd be crazy for that to boost his survival odds (assuming anyone does survive).
If the pilot is still pulling up when the plane contacts the ground, then you’re probably talking about an extremely high speed crash, where no seat is safe. The types of crashes you need to analyze for seat specific survivability are things like runway excursions and relatively level landings onto fields or bodies of water.
I came across this site , and found the data to be really interesting. Pakistan International Airlines ranks decently well, while Southwest Airlines ranks among the worst.
Perhaps they should undergo IOSA audit, but it is entirely optional and is viewed as less necessary in the US because the FAA's mandatory safety oversight is similarly strict. It is mostly a certification obtained by airlines to demonstrate that they are "as safe" as their peers, and as the largest carrier in the US with an excellent safety record, Southwest is probably just not very inclined to go to the extra expense for a certificate to hang on the wall.
I would say this is a basic problem with evaluating airline safety based on external accreditation rather than on their actual safety record. However, I'm sure the latter would be much more difficult to do globally.
Excluding this current incident, PIA has killed 102 passengers and crew since 2000.
The most expansive view of Southwest’s record would include 4 fatalities: one passenger, two people on the ground, and another passenger who died of a medical issue while being restrained.
One of those ground deaths was because someone walked onto the runway and was hit by a landing 737, so I’m not inclined to blame Southwest for that.
One of the crazier things I've seen. Really the only fatality a Southwest pilot is responsible for.
Also worth considering is fatalities per flight hour. While I couldn’t find accurate flight hours for all the airlines, Southwest has a much larger fleet (752 vs. 31). Combined with a much lower fatality count (arguably 2 vs. 102), this implies that Southwest is much, much safer than PIA. It’s possible that non-fatal incidents can cover that gap, but at a high level analysis this seems implausible.
(But also: "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.")
I think I will be the first of many to say this: When they will finally get PIA privatised for good?
Jokes aside, airlines around the world are pretty much nationalized one way or the other -- and we have to re-evaluate things on the other side of pandemic 2 years from now.
There's even a book about a guy who visited half of the places called 'Aberdeen' on earth, which took 10 years.
 J. Leidner (2007) Toponym resolution in Text
I'd love to read more on your thesis!