BOAC,
I support the call for all new runway surfaces to be 'reclassified' when wet particlarly until grooving is complete.
I think there are good questions to ask about the characteristics of newly paved surfaces. If there are differences that occur in the "curing" process then they should be identified and accounted for in performance planning. I suspect one of the problems would be that different processes in different places will have different results, so a rule based response might not be as good as a test or observation based response.
There is also the matter of the number of ungrooved runways that still exist and the higher risk they impose on operations. Why do regulators allow that risk to continue when there must be some practical grooving methods that can be applied even to older and sub-standard runway surfaces? Your concerns regarding hydroplaning are most particularly apt in respect of the combination of non-grooved, questionably crowned runways in areas of poor drainage, and there are quite a few of those still out there.
I have to say that like others I would probably not have tried to land there that evening in that aircraft.
Nor likely would I have, but I do respect that specific training and experience with that operation would make me approach the judgement differently. The answer for me might have remained the same, but possibly not.
An interesting point arises from the AB FCTM: I was always taught (Boeing) to use autobrake when conditions might be marginal (since application of 'manual' braking can be delayed sometimes if you finish up doing a 'soft-shoe-shuffle' on the rudder pedals) and then to apply the required foot pressure. Has this advice now dropped out of the frame?
No, I don't think so. The guidance for the planned use of autobrake in most situations where significant braking is required is sensible since it provides a quicker and more consistent start to braking than the pilot is likely to achieve and can help with directional control issues when braking coefficients are low. I think that the last bit about the use of manual braking on very short runways is meant to cater to instances when you are operating at or near the limits of the aircraft's performance where there may not be a sufficient margin between the required and the available distances to permit a failure of the automated system to occur, be recognized and be responded to safely. Hence the recommendation to plan manual braking which is consistent with what is written a bit later and which applies to all of us whether Airbus, Boeing or of any other stripe:
Auto-brake does not relieve the pilot of the responsibility of achieving a safe stop within the available runway length.
Personally I take a belt and suspenders approach. If the approach is a difficult one the manual braking can get delayed so I'd want the autobrake backing me up in case my planned manual braking was delayed. For a situation similar to this I would have had the autobrake armed at medium, but intended to use it only as a backup to manual braking commencing at touchdown. If you look at the FDR data for the previous landing at CGH you will see that this is how the pilot who did that landing approached the situation as well. Why the pilot in this case didn't choose the same approach is, to me, a critical question.
ELAC