Everybody seems to be slagging off the airfield for its shortcomings. Yes it is short but everyday larger aircraft than 767s land there quite safely without slithering off into the mud.
So, the options are that: the aircraft had a brake or NWS failure, the runway was unusually slippery on that day and/or the aircraft vacating the runway was going too fast for the conditions. What about a note on the Chart or on the ATIS, 'Runway gets slippery when wet! Taxi slower!'. Yep I know, it sounds facetious doesn't it. Was there any pressure from ATC to expedite vacating the runway or did the crew take it into their own hands?
As far as upgrading the runway, who should pay? The operators? I guarantee you that there won't be too many airline CFOs looking to foot the bill for a runway upgrade when most flights don't seem to have a snag. If they did, we would then have to move onto the runways around the rest of the UK, the Med, in Africa and onto the sub-continent. All of a sudden BHX's runway is starting to look like it is paved with gold compared to some of the other options out there. Lets get it into perspective!
Ghost
