eagle21;
It looks to me like the "Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake" chart has been used by Capt. Inop. Using this chart the numbers, correcting for the headwind/tailwind item already mentioned by BOAC and taking your comment into account that the runway was just wet but not flooded (I would agree given the wx above), the calculation (using my own Airbus QRH which may differ slightly due different manufacture weights), would be closer to:
Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake
62,700kg approx
Config FULL with Autobrakes MED distance WET = 5200ft approx
Altitude correction, 3%/1000 = 7.5% x 5200 = 5600 approximately
2 Reversers operative = 0% - no credit, no liability.
Minus Headwind of 8kts or so, (-3% approx) = 5600 - 3% = 5400ft approx
The tables take into account speed increments linked to headwind and autoland. Any further speed increment of 5 knots increases landing distance by 7% for all runways.
The Landing Distance Without Autobrake Config FULL is much shorter because of the landing technique assumed - hardly any flare, immediate maximum manual braking until stopped, no reverse accounted for:
62,000kg
Wet distance = 3760ft (compared to 2690ft DRY)
4%/1000ft ASL = 10% x 3760 = 4100ft approx
No credit for headwind
- 6% for 2 Reversers Operative = 4100ft - 6% = 3900ft approx.
E&OE...
We must be very cautious with these numbers however - a great many assumptions are made and we're working with practically no information and as such the exercise is an academic one. Also, no pilot fully expects to "slam" his/her aircraft onto the runway and execute maximum braking when, in the moment, there is no emergency or abnormality. Thus drawing conclusions from this exercise would be folly. The investigation does this for real.
To the family, friends of all passengers and to compatriots of the operating and deadheading crew and to all Brazillians who must endure this tragedy so soon after another, I extend my heartfelt sympathies. Your pain is shared by many, including airline crews the world over. RIP.