[Madman]

Originally Posted by sa226

It really depends on what their calculated landing distance was and what margin for error they used. Runway looks wet, but not standing water wet. Where was their touchdown point?

I obviously don't have 744 landing numbers in front of me, but for a 737 and a 767 a 5 know tailwind would add roughly 500ft to the landing distance, depending on the runway surface condition.

Based on the time of the incident (just after 5am local time) they likely made their calculations based on the 4am ATIS (0800 UTC) which shows a very slight headwind. 210/10kts. The ceiling was also 500ft so you can understand why they wanted rwy 14 for the only usable ILS on the field.

The more recent hourly shows that the winds swung to 230\13kts. A small tailwind. Then the special came out at 5:12 am local time showing 230\11G18kts which ast the 18kt gust mark gives you the closest to the 5kt tailwind.

What were the actual winds at the time of the incident? I sure as hell don't know. What were they given by ATC just prior to landing? Don't know that either. What was the margin for error on their landing distance calculation given the winds were shifting from headwind to tail wind? Beats me. Was the runway more slippery than thought? Who knows. With a gusty crosswind, which can at times affect speed control, how high above or below ref speed was touchdown?

Sure there is some airmanship involved when electing to land with a tail wind. But the numbers either work, or they don't.

Since the interwebz is the home to all armchair quarterbacks, my guess is if the unconfirmed tailwind factored into the incident at all, it factored very little.

I always enjoy the VASAvation videos of incidents like these.