despite your precautions
No precaution,here...and certainly no agenda.
I'm all for informing anyone asking perfectly legitimate questions. I'm certainly not going to let pass some ambulance chasers by without reacting.
You, and your other avatar are trying to prove...what ? That Airbus is chasing on the holy ground of Boeing and should be burned and A pilots should be locked in asylums ?
Actually, you are so imbued of your righteousness that you fall in every trap I lay for you : As it has been proven by their early deceleration that they had working brakes, the failure I referred to is as unlikely as being impossible.
My own view is that yes, maybe they DID have some braking -
3.4 m/s/s = 0.35 G. That SOME braking. And if you think that it comes from reversers and spoilers, You have no idea on how things work.
that its effect may have been severely restricted by the 'Anti-Skid,' given that they were still travelling pretty fast on a damp runway.
Same answer, same remark
I'd wish you'd see your mission as being to inform and educate us
Boy ! I thought that you were the only one on this site to know about airplane systems. And when did you ever ever asked a genuine sincere question ?
Perhaps you could get a bit constructive and tell us all what the A320 crew manual actually says about 'Loss Of Braking?'
As you have Google, find it and come back to us. And it's not about cycling switches.
In fact, the way this forum goes, there are several kinds of posters :
- Those who want to understand how things are, what happened
- Those who have some of the answers
- Those who have an understanding of the situation but want more information
- Those with an agenda ( here it is to prove that it can't happen on anything but an Airbus )
Now you know whom my ignore list is composed of. ( you're not there, you amuse me too much ).
Cheers