Accident investigation statistics for runway excursion / overrun are characterised by several similarities, some of which may apply to this accident. Tailwinds and (wet) concrete runways.
It appears that the landing at Midway was on a dry runway; however, how often have pilots been caught out by a change in braking coefficient? The difference between a good ‘black top’ runway and a concrete surface could be 0.2 mu. The larger differences occur at higher speeds – note ground speed – tailwind landings. Tailwinds always reduce the safety margins; 150% landing distance factors are applied. A small change (5 kts) in a reported light tail wind could easily cause an aircraft, heavier than usual, to rapidly approach the limiting landing performance, Then of course the crews performance has to be considered; do they always land at the assumed touchdown point or use max braking …. ?
Are crews now over-familiar with the standard black top runways or the more recent high friction course (HFC) surfaces that they forget that there are still some poor runway surfaces out there? I have no recent knowledge of Midway, but on a wet day even with grooving, the reduction in mu could approach 0.4; maybe similar to the difference between good HFC and un-grooved concrete on a dry day. Then there is rubber or dust to add to the equation.
The other hazard with concrete is that with aging the blocks sink / settle in the centre enabling puddles of water to form. Similarly with the bitumen edges they can dam water puddles to an extent that a runway described as ‘wet with water patches’ should be treated as flooded.
Safe landings – into wind.