This didn’t look hard enough to cause that damage, unless there were prior damage or corrosion. I believe that is what they find when they investigate, and no more than about 400fpm on touchdown.

They can pull that very easily from the computer on any post 1997 Boeing.

We stopped doing the noise abatement departures a long time ago. In regards to flaps 40 landings in the -800, I find that it requires a more aggressive flare but it also depends on how you land the aircraft. If you like to drive it in with the power up, then obviously you won't need to flare much.

Accident history notwithstanding, all the current 737 pilots I know (as well as myself) enjoy flying the MAX. There is usually disappointment if a MAX gets swapped for an NG on a trip, however I’ll take a 700 going into SNA over the current MAX offering of 8s and 9s.

Ever flown a MAX or just taking anonymous internet potshots?

I don’t know why people are saying that it looked normal. That looked like a very hard landing to me. There’s a point where the landing is so hard, it might seem normal but that’s because it has so much downward momentum that it doesn’t even bounce. The gear fully compressed and even the rebound force from the struts doesn’t have enough force to push it back in the air. The fact that people shout and scream on touchdown tells you how hard that was. That’s not normal to have people scream on landing.

I never land with power above idle. Why do people do this? I’ve flown the 300, 500, 700, 800, and MAX8–the first three can be flared like a C152.

I agree, it didn't look like a hard landing from just watching the video but obviously none of us on here have the data. Even if it was a text book hard landing, that sort of damage should not have occurred on a 737. The 73 was designed to take the beating. I've witnessed quite of few firm and some hard landings, especially now a days with new hires and transition pilots. My money is on fatigue, mechanical failure, and/or corrosion. This was one of the older 800s and between southeast flying and shorter runway ops, Alaska jets tend to take a harder beating than the rest.

Rate of decent on an approach is purely a function of ground speed and the glideslope angle. Flaps only change that if they change the approach speed. Generally more flaps equals a reduced speed that would correspond to a reduced required rate of decent. At 130 knots groundspeed a 3 degree glideslope requires about 650 FPM rate of decent. Easy rule of thumb for cross check is groundspeed times 5 equals rate of decent for a standard 3 degree glideslope. 1000 to 1500 is outside stabilized approach criteria and would require a go around. Transport category aircraft are normally required to withstand a 600 FPM touchdown with no side loads for certification purposes. Your mileage might very on an older airframe with a touch of side loading. I can attest as can any carrier pilot that a 700 FPM touchdown is very firm!

Really? It's because it's text book landing procedure. I've flown several small GA aircraft and military trainers & heavies, all of which land with power at idle. I land all of our 73 variants (400 when it was around, 700, 800, 900, 900ER, and MAX) the same with slight differences in each. Even if I decide to drive it in, I still pull the throttles to idle before touching down. Power-on landings, here at Alaska and in the Air Force (at least when I was in), is not normal ops.

you left out “in the level attitude” in addition to no side loading and at the Max lading weight. It is 6 fps at design takeoff weight. Part 25 sub part C. 25.473 “Landing load conditions and assumptions.”

600 FPM is at designed landing weight. The 6 fps(360 FPM) is at max takeoff weight. Your certainly correct that landing with the wings other than level imposes additional loads.