They do matter in real life, just not for perf calculations.

Maybe we get used to the grooves here and take it for granted.

On the FPR there is a note when flying into VABB that says to select moderate rain on APS due to none grooved and poor water drainage on runways. It is much more conservative than selecting wet function.

I once landed on 4R at DTW. I was the first one to land after the runway was plowed and MUs reported at 50.
Braking action was nil. I didn't get the airplane slowed enough to pull off until Y7. I was lucky it was 4R and didn't run off the runway.

Maybe so, although since the MD has some pretty capable anti-skid, I'm skeptical. In order to get reverted rubber hydroplaning going, you probably need to have a locked wheel. I doubt all of them locked and if that is steam, it's coming from way more than just one tire. Take a look at the engines and you'll see they're in full reverse (note at least 1 compressor stall on #1 as a result). So, like the guy you responded to stated, the reversers are kicking up a bunch of the standing water on the runway in front of the engines.

More than one
 

Looks like multiple compressor stalls!

They landed on RW14. The wind will come out somewhere from 020-030 gusting over 20kts. Looks like a failure from the airports stand point and of course the Captain. I cannot tell from the video if they used F35 or F50? Maybe some of the contributors can post for us. Thanks.

I suppose the investigation is complete, just like that ?

what "failure" did the Captain commit ? Is this a single pilot airplane ? is the airport information published ? by who ? weather reporting is done by who ? etc. Have prior safety reports been made about that runway by FedEx crews and submitted to the safety team ? what was done with them ?

aircraft accidents/incidents today (2020) are looked at thru the lens of the Swiss cheese model, not "Joe is at fault for f**cking up" etc.

that may be old school but the thinking has changed on "blame"

Grooved or PFC runways are used in determining performance. FAR Part 25 Amendment 25-92 in 1998 mandated that airplanes must be certified using both dry and wet takeoff data. The amendment also provides guidance for calculating performance on grooved or PFC runways, either using 70 percent of the dry Mu coefficient or the formulas provided in FAR 25.109. Grooved or PFC runway performance is only available when the runway is wet, not contaminated.

If the airplane was certified after 1998, the performance data for grooved/PFC runways is probably in the AFM/DPI or PET, and Boeing models 747-8, 787, 737 Max have this data.

For landing, Mumbai is an airport where operators should strongly consider applying SAFO 19003 guidance. If landing on grooved runways with heavy rain, or smooth runways with moderate or heavy rain, use RwyCC 2. Grooved/PFC runways are effective when the runway condition is wet. If the runway is contaminated, the efficacy of grooves is nil, which is effectively what the SAFO is stating.

SAFO 19003 was published due to 5 runway excursions in an approximately 30 day period last May/June, all due in part to rainy conditions.

Who is ultimately in charge of that aircraft? Who makes the final decision. I don't care if there were 2, 3, or 4 crew members on this particular flight, the final authority lies with the person who signed for it.

As far as the weather goes? Look it up. It is fairly easy to find. If the airport wants you to land on a wet, non-grooved, displaced threshold with a tailwind then you better make sure you will be able to stop. It doesn't matter what your landing assessment said you were legal to do it. Is it a good idea? In this case it wasn't. Thankfully no one was hurt and maybe just some minor engine trouble.

Go ahead and investigate and hope the brakes were not working but guess what, this will be pilot error as one of the contributing factors. Hopefully we all learn from it, including myself.

Cheers

Thank you, wise one. How about we maybe wait until some facts come out before we assign blame?

There was no damage to the airplane. Not a huge deal.