Rainboe: My point is that for anyone (let alone the airline head) to state without qualification that the aircraft was in "perfect condition of maintenance" is premature pending the investigation. If indeed TAM have also agreed that there was u/s thrust reverse, "adequate" might already be a more sensitive description of the aircraft's condition, particularly when an aircraft has suffered an overrun accident of this nature. Even better, why can't these people just say that every aspect of the operation will be investigated and leave it at that.
Incidentally, your own assertion that "no doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained" also seems to evidence the very speculation which you seek to discourage, unless your location is somewhere more relevant than Hampshire.
Last edited by Max Tow; 19th Jul 2007 at 00:27.