TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

[Lemurian]

ChristiaanJ,

I took a quick look at the Camair CDG incident you gave us a link to, and I came across the comment made by the BEA saying that this overrun had some similarities with another two incidents, namely F-GITA at Faa and China Air B-165 at Kai Tak.
That one is also worth a careful read as, from the accident analysis,

1. they landed normally in difficult rain / windshear conditions
2. T/Ls retarded to *idle*, speedbrakes extended and autobrakes kicked in.
3. Somehow #1 T/L was pushed 8 degrees forward of idle, the other T/Ls in a lesser extent
4. this action on #1 T/L disconnected the autobrake and caused the speedbrakes to retract (with the corresponding lever movement on the pedestal)
   
   The consequences of advancing the levers instead of selecting
   reverse thrust were serious. Residual forward thrust
   increased, wheel braking stopped and the speedbrakes were
   retracted. Neither pilot noticed these very important
   changes. They did not look at the speedbrake lever and they
   may not have felt the effect of wheel brakes because brake
   pressure was being phased in.

5. When eventually, reverse thrust was reapplied, the speedbrakes extended again
6. The airplane overrun the runway at a speed of some 30 knots.
   No casualties.

Here is the link to that report :
China Air B-165 HKG
What I find quite interesting is that this report destroys all the blurb we've seen on this thread about the need for moving throttles (because of *tactile feed back*, *visibility* (knowing that 744 throttles are a damn sight bigger / taller than 320 T/Ls).
Finally, going back to the argument someone had with bsieker on occurrences'statistics, I'd say that, considering the number of sectors flown by a long -hauler, the statistics do not seem to be in favour of the M solution, do they ?
Of course I have a very simple mind
Best regards