PEI;
Thanks for the links.
Note that this accident involved a non grooved runway
If I recall correctly, there isn't a grooved runway in all of Canada.
Question, (if a thread diversion, please set aside): The Airbus FCOM provides landing distance numbers in the QRH for the A319/A320/321/A330 series for all factors...airport altitude, aircraft weight, tailwind component, forward CG, reversers operative as well as cross-referencing all modes of contamination. I seem to recall that the dry distances may also be co-related to the Transport Canada
CRFI tables but that may be Ops-Specs specific and not apply elsewhere. Information on the CRFI is available in a number of places, along with in-depth discussions, on the
TC website (and likely in some operators' manuals).
AirRabbit;
Not disputing your numbers but just curious as to the source, (aside from the FSF). They differ slightly (some more conservative, some less), from the Airbus numbers but I think for most of us the reasons for the differences are understandable in terms of specific test results vs general rules where actual distances and factors are not provided for the crew in the FCOM or QRH. Nevertheless I think they're appropriate.
Flight data analysis indicates a flat trend regarding long landings, some well beyond the TDZ, (3000' to 5000' beyond the 50' RA point). Further, such touchdown points are variously normalized (excused) by claiming that, "the runway was long" or, more creatively, "the wing is large and the airplane therefore floats more", and so on. We need not detain ourselves lamenting such silly excuses because we all know what the results of such ignorance are. The key is in providing both the data and the means to counter what the data is telling us, (and by "us" I mean this industry and not just one or another airline...from experience, this is a very common event), all in support of such excellent presentations as the one to which the link is provided.
PJ2