Rat 5;
Fully concur with your comments. In fact using maximum reverse thrust until the aircraft is stopped is permitted and even recommended in some SOPs, along with, or course, maximum pedal deflection (into the kitchen). Good reminder that autosystems, while superb, don't relieve the crew of their primary duty - to control the aircraft under all circumstances - auto-systems are only a "how", not a "what".
A4;
One of the findings of the QF "golf course" accident at Bangkok was a lack of awareness amoungst crews regarding retardation when experiencing aquaplaneing. QF had adopted a policy of Reverse idle, reduced flap and an intermediate autobrake setting to save money. Less engine wear,less fuel, less noise.... and it worked, they saved several million dollars in the 2-3 years before the accident.
A link to the complete report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...904538_001.pdf
and to ATSB comments:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorials/e00012.aspx
and to other commentary:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_74294022
The point of providing these links once again is not to criticize a fine airline nor even to point to the fact that accidents can happen anywhere to any airline but to note that effective and engaged use of their data-monitoring program could have provided sufficient information regarding operations on contaminated runways to prevent the accident. This fact was observed in the ATSB report in the sense that QAR data was not routinely employed by their flight operations department for risk assessment including changes in SOPs. The reduced flap setting/reduced brake settings which you observe were available in the data at the time but not employed.
I know Ryanair routinely employs FDM and analyses the data including the use of crew calls where indicated. The question then might be, were there indications in the data regarding the risk of overrrun or was this a once-of?
PJ2