armchairpilot
Huh ? Mathematically, 2354 < 2400 . Correct ?
Go back to the TranAsia accident report, have a look at the *scenarii* AI (not AB) had computed and see the spread of landing distances.
The computations made on this forum, to the best of my judgement are valid, both in terms of the assumed decelerations and stopping distances, and are validated by these data.
Of course, you still can go along splitting hairs "the EPR valur was greater "... Yes, but the deceleration graph originally shows that a small deceleration was achieved
without brakes or reversers which proves that
initially drag and ground friction more than balanced the generated forward thrust on #2 engine.
Then you could go on , on the stress in that cockpit... I dare say that the emergency dawned on them relatively later than the touch-down and the unavailability of the ground spoilers. See
bsieker's WBA graph (at least someone agrees with me ).
The main difficulty in discussing with you or
marciovp is that you seem to refuse engineering evidence and physics.
Where both your arguments err is when you start factoring physics with human factors no one knows as we were not in this cockpit. We can explain how this accident happened, putting figures and timing to the FDR/CVR data but we will never understand the multiple *whys*. It's for someone else greater and higher than me.
On the other hand, the *prophylaxys* of such an accident lie heavily on -I say it again -
quality of training, Adherence to SOPs, Quality Documentation, Quality Dispatch Department ...
In this respect, TAM's OPS Department will be on the front of the firing line.
I've said enough. I won't discuss these points any more.
As for letters and references from Marcio, I think they made their point themselves.
Adeus !