|Quoting N710PS (Reply 154):|
Now lets toss the rain in and the ungrooved surface and the bottom line is that plane should not have been at that airport grooved or not in my opinion.
|Quoting N710PS (Reply 169):|
Again, this is Brazil though. A land where inept ATC and systems issues is enough to blame American for something.
First of all, your comments are ridiculous. Whether or not this runway was safe enough to operate on in wet weather due to the recent resurfacing / lack of grooves / suspected company mismanagement, how do you get off calling all of Brazils ATC's and "systems" (whatever that's supposed to mean) inept? And where's the American part in all of this? The airplane, if it was at all at fault, was European. No one has been blaming the US for anything. I'm highly confused at what your point is.
Plus, your first statement, that the bottom line is that the plane should not have been at that airport [at all, ever], is equally ridiculous. Maybe you missed the previous postings where runway lengths were discussed and how DCA and Midway and other short runways service A320s, 737s, and even larger planes on a daily constant basis. CGH has been landing and departing A320s for years now. There are pictures of A300s at CGH during the 90s. Landing weight with fuel restrictions comes into play with almost any aircraft at any airport. Its a fact of aviations that pilots understand and calculate before all flights.
The more this story unfolds, the less likely it seems thast the pilot had any idea that he wasn't going to be able to stop his airplane when he was on final. I wasn't the first person to say that the AF A340 in YYZ should probably have diverted because of the *severe* thunderstorms going on at the time, but this doesn't seem to be the case in this scenario. My money is on a lack of a grooved surface and a wet runway, coupled with an attempt to go around that went horrifically wrong.