OK - folk are coming out of the woodwork with 'theories' now while the FDR/CVR is still being looked at, so,
My cards on the table:
Let us lay this mis-information about
a) Tire Tread - various folk have said the 'tread' don't matter on a tire. We call that Bull. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about aquaplaning knows that circumferential grooves VASTLY increase tire contact in aquaplaning conditions. I believe there was an excellent film a few years ago ('Dunlop'?) which showed this clearly and I would suggest all take a look at it - get your safety officer to get a copy. You only need to watch the Indy on slicks in the wet to see it too. A tire almost 'worn to canvas' (still legal) will aquaplane far more readily than a new one with grooves.
b) Reversers - oh boy can they make a difference! If anyone has landed and found Braking Action 'Nil' as I have will know that. Only Reverse saved me, as brakes were ineffective and there was not enough runway left. I am quite frankly stunned that the TAM MEL calls for only a blanket 55m increase in LDR with one inop!!! What runway conditions - all? Let's face it, on a normal landing with autobrake a u/s reverser (or two) makes NO difference to LDR. On a slippery runway with very poor BA? If it is only 55m why on earth did Airbus fit the godamned things in the first place with all the weight, expense and maintenance? There seems also to be some confusion over the effect of 'contaminated' - which can actually help stopping.
c) Someone says spoilers operate automatically - yes, on a NORMAL system.
d) Whether or not touchdown was fast or long and/or whether a g/a was attempted - we will only know from the FDR. There are, sadly, no survivors. It is pointless folk 'guessing' here. Touchdown time, the time trace from there to impact and Ground Speed will enable a pretty accurate definition of 'where','how' and 'if'. All that is certain is that the video shows something wildly wrong in terms of speed. I confess to a shudder when I saw the crash airplane on that video. We also await news of any other tech defects which may or may not have been present - if the report of a previous 'exciting' stop are true, who knows, apart from the inquiry team?
As far as my operation is concerned, and I am making NO judgement on this accident - just my 'philosophy':
1) I would not wish to operate a heavyish airplane onto a shortish highish pretty 'slippery' runway (at night too), with a possible NPA in rain and lowish cloud, one reverse u/s - oh yes, a training flight too................
I would be talking to my boss on my mobile from another airfield explaining why I was not where I should have been.