I haven’t had the time to read anything that may have been made available by the NTSB regarding the accident in Jamaica, so I can’t comment on Mr. Pasztor’s article. However, I’m more than willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until/unless I recognize a reason to change that opinion.
For whatever it may be worth, here is a list of approximations for additional runway distance required (after touchdown – where touchdown would have been planned to occur at the touchdown aiming point) for a typical transport category airplane, required to get the airplane stopped using normal landing procedures, not considering the use of reverse thrust. The calculation for each of the following factors is valid only if the factor involved is the only factor involved. If the following individual circumstances are combined, the increase would be at least the added values of the individual circumstances – and potentially more.
(1) For each additional 1000 feet of airport elevation above sea level, a 5% increase.
(2) For each 5 knots of tailwind, a 10% increase.
(3) For each additional 5% of airspeed above VREF, a 10% increase.
(4) For each additional 5% of airspeed above VREF and holding the airplane in the flare to decelerate, a 30% increase.
(5) For each additional 100 feet above the threshold at crossing, a 30% increase.
(6) For a wet runway, a 40% increase.
(7) For a snow covered runway, a 60% increase.
(8) For standing water or slush on the runway, a 100% increase.
(9) For an ice covered runway, a 250% increase.
A landing is, or should be, taught to touchdown at the touchdown aiming point (i.e., at 1000 feet beyond the approach threshold). However, generally, it is deemed acceptable to have the airplane on the runway within the touchdown zone, or the first 1/3 of the runway (whichever is shorter), with a normal rate of descent to the runway. Certainly, if the crew elects to overfly the first portion of the runway – for whatever reason – that runway surface cannot be included in the landing distance calculation.
________
(edit) I have been told that the US Flight Safety Foundation has a table available (on their website, perhaps?) that reflects numbers very similar to those above.