I am really getting sick and tired of the B vs A war, as if the manufacturers the other side of the aAtlantic are absolutely perfect and their design flawless.
And, STS, if the Airbus jocks defend that airplane, maybe - just maybe - they know better than you and hadn't the *Not Boeing, not going *- brigade been so unashamedly vocal - and bring NOTHING to the discussion.
May I just remind you that -take the most modern one - landing a 777 on a wet runway, with one de-activated T/R and leaving the #2 throttle on the approach setting...yes, you would get a deployment of the ground spoilers, but you won't have autobrake and you won't have any "Retard" voice call either. You will also have the approach thrust left on engine #2, in other words, you'll be left in exactly the same situation as the TAM 3054. Will the spoilers extension alone save your skin, then ?
Remember also the AF 744 in Papeete. How could they have *forgotten* that #1 throttle was at Go Around thrust while the other three were in full reverse ? And funny enough, no warning either. (That time, they were lucky, the lagoon can be a very efficient means of braking ).
Do you know that the 777 is in fact a lot more difficult to handle in a windshear situation than a 737, because close to the envelope limits the control forces are increased (Boeing philosophy for avoiding the Airbus-type limits), so one would be muscling his way in and out of the stick shaker with some very heavy controls ?
Someone mentioned Cali. It was a 757. THey attempted a Go-around and forgot to retract the spoilers, Has the design changed on the 777 ? I'm not sure, looking at the spoiler logic under my eyes.
Could I go on , and on ?
So, please, leave off. And spare me the hypocritical attitude of defense of the pilot's memory. As a group, we know that mistakes are made and there is no blame -should be no blame -. We'll just study how it was made and try to find a cure. That's part of our trade.