People are quoting the METAR at the time of the crash!
I have been trying to make the following point- what information was presented to the crew at the time of the accident?
WX: W/V 50 degrees off the RWY at 15KTS gusting 20KTS. This is well within limits. Now, two preceding aircraft landed ahead and reported POOR braking action. PLEASE lets stick to Airbus here- as per FCOM 2 POOR braking is used to restrict X-W operational limits. This needs to now be considered. For Boeing drivers, POOR Braking is not an ice runway equivalent- it is dry snow or standing water on an Airbus and is predominantly ( possibly entirely but don't have manuals ) used to reduce XW limits
So, you have the legally required ALD 1987m contaminated unfactored versus 2743m available. Now Airbus tells you to use the Autoland With Autobrake to derive realistic factored ALD figures and from memory these figures are padded by around 15% for a contaminated runway.
XW Limitation at approach commencement would appear to be in limits even when you reduce it by the mandatory factor because of reported POOR Braking.
You have no W/W indication from the Tower so are reliant on the pilot reports and your IRS derived readout on approach.
But......................... the NTSB Prelim report says
At about the time the aircraft landed a sharp boundary of rain with a moving TS associated wind changes and gusts
So it wasn't until the last stages of the approach and possibly the flare that the conditions become 1) possibly illegal 2) extremely perilous.
The fact the aircraft overshot the touchdown zone could even suggest overshoot sheer on short finals and the flare.
Which returns me to my original point that a low level GA may have been the only way to save the day.
And a footnote. In clutter, heavy rain and in a terminal area close to the ground I personally find Airbus radars to be overly sensitive. Point being the radar picture may not have been clear.