Please tell me how braking action would of been reported at the time of the down pour???

Does the landing data require the crew to input variables? Many pilots at my current employer rarely update landing performance variables from the default values. Some gotchas include not selecting the correct braking action, failing to update the wind, and not updating approach speed for a wind additive.

Tough guy here.

My guess is the numbers they had did not precisely account for the available braking action. But i don't think it was prudent under the conditions to just call it good because nobody threw an official braking action flag.

They had two strikes to start with. Whether +RA constituted strike three for braking action was a judgement call. We'll know soon enough.

You're right. It's far more likely that a brake/hydraulic failure, spoiler issue or some other stopping related malfunction just happened to occur at the same time a decision to land under those conditions was made. It couldn't possibly be exactly what it looks like. I'm a proponent of Occam's Razor, but time will tell.

What is your point? Lots of flights - so you get "x" amount of "mulligans"?

So, short and shorter runways in your system, possibly slick - sounds like a reason to be extra conservative, not an excuse for occasionally running one off the end. If anything, you're supporting an argument for more frequent diverts. Would you rather have the "Why does SWA divert from BUR, SNA or MDW so often?" discussion 1000 times or this one once?
The fact that this airline chooses to service airports with tiny runways really isn't a valid excuse if this event is exactly what it appears to be.

This thread is why I hate pilots...

There are always contributing factors, like the proverbial Swiss cheese model. Was rain a factor? Absolutely. Was tailwind a factor? Absolutely. Now, what about the performance calculations? Y'know... that TALPA thingamajig. Are there any inconsistencies there? Was runway called 5-5-5 when in reality it was 4-4-4 or worse? Who makes the determination? When?

But hey, forget all that. Let's just hang a crew because who needs that scientific hogwash telling us what's what. We should just "eyeball" it and call it good or bad, right? But wait... isn't that what you and your ilk accuse us of doing?

OK, I'll bite. How does your airline conduct TALPA?

"Extra conservative" - what does that mean specifically? How much margin do we add to be "extra conservative"? If the FAA calls the runway contamination as 5-5-5, should we just "eyeball" it and call it 4-4-4 for our calculations and call it "extra conservative"? Or do we just say 'naaaaaaaaaw' despite that the company pays A LOT of money to provide us with the best and most accurate information possible to help us make the best possible decision?

Your argument is emotional and bears no semblance of a rational thought. I realize that's all the rage these days in politics, but thankfully, that's not how we approach events like this. After the investigation is complete, then we can cast stones and hang the crew if they need hanging... until then, I'm a very interested party with an open mind.

i think I've read 2 posts that were sensible in this thread.

What's with all the haters? Hat too tight?

Most of you sound like complete D bags

Totally get that and I am one and for the company in question here.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Most pilots have one thing in common: a desire to complete the flight to the destination airport. Sometimes this can lead us to do things we later think wasn't the best idea. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Very, very happy nobody got hurt.