the first approach was to 20, the second to 02. They decided it was easier to land on 02 with cloud conditions. Either way it is a visual approach over the runway if you go to MAP. You can then land either way if you can stay VMC. Clouds were marginal around 2,000 feet that day so they probably were trying to make it work and found 02 easier to land on. Unfortunately that put them landing downhill on a wet 5400 ft runway with a 10 knot tailwind with a 70 ft cliff at the end. We had strict rules on landing weights and tailwinds so would not have landed. Over 5 knots on a dry runway of tailwind prohibited us from landing.
Sounds fair and safe to me.
A few questions, though :
1/- Were your minima 2700 ft / 3 sm (= 4800 m) ?
If yes, would you have attempted a
circling approach on RWY 02 with this METAR :
MHTG 301500Z 19004KT 2000S -DZ FEW008 BKN020 OCV080 21/19 Q1016 2KM S SW WSW D/C 8KM PCPN CL HZ ? ( reading it, I have the feeling that all quadrants leading to the final 02 (w, SW, S ) were below vis min and the broken ceiling 700 ft below minimum.
2/- On RWY 02, there is a 5.3° PAPI restricted to A and B cat aircraft. Is that descent path angle a reflection of the
actual trajectory you'd find yourself at on short final ?
3/-Corollary : How were speed control and respect of a landing trajectory ?