To BD. True, 'most' people "don't know squat"* about landing aircraft, but many have driven and/or braked hard on a road with standing water, the same basic principle applies.
Of course. So how long should the runway be?
That's surprisingly hard to determine. Pilots tend to use whatever runway is available. I used to fly a small plane into a 1600 foot runway. A sharp pilot can land that particular aircraft in half that distance in normal conditions. A so-so pilot can land in the full runway. But pilots still run out of runway there. They invariably say, after crashing into the fence at the end, "how long is this damn runway, anyway?" The correct length is marked on the FCC maps which they are
required to have in the cockpit. In the aviation biz, there is no excuse for ignorance; it causes crashes.
A nearby field has a 4000 foot runway. Sure enough, pilots still manage to run off the end. The point - it doesn't matter if the runway is 1600 or 4000 feet long - the factors which cause pilots to run out of tarmac
have nothing to do with the actual length of the runway. There is nothing in everyday experience which would give anyone the "common sense" to realize that. Anyone who knows flip about flying knows it, though.
Landing a aircraft on an ungrooved, runway in a rainstorm demands close attention. Having done so once or twice in a mere four seater I can vouch for that.
All aspects of safe flight demand close attention. That's why your typical Airline Transport Pilot has more on-the-job training than your typical brain surgeon.
The circumstances are unclear but allowing mere financial concerns to permit the landing of a loaded commercial jet on a short, soaked runway (if indeed that is what happened), is negligent and callous, if not outright criminal.
The airline industry is not viable if "mere finanacial concerns" are neglected. If all runways were required to be fifteen miles long, there would be about five airports in the entire world, all of them in places nobody would ever dream of flying to. And I have no doubt that pilots would still manage to run off the ends.
In this case, the runway apparently ends at a bluff overlooking a busy highway, with developed urban areas beyond. Simply "lengthening the runway" doesn't sound so simple. If it really has to be longer, that airport would probably have to be abandoned, or limited to aircraft with shorter landing distances. Both of these things have been done routinely as aircraft become larger. Simply changing the end of a short runway to a "soft" surface is a poor solution. Anything which increases "braking" forces on landing gear also increases bending forces on landing gear, increasing the risk of gear failure. (And please, let's not have some random LPSG member who knows nothing about landing techniques try to lecture me about landing gear.) Landing gear failure means that the moving airframe comes in contact with the ground, and - besides ruining the aircraft - that is likely to rupture a fuel tank, which almost certainly means a fire. Fires on aircraft are hardly conducive to passenger safety. In the Brazilian case, adding a "soft" stretch of runway would necessarily shorten the extent of good runway - not a step in the right direction.
It is the pilot's responsibility to know the capabilities of his aircraft. No exceptions! All aircraft have operator's manuals which give takeoff and landing distances as functions of aircraft weight, airport pressure altitude, and weather conditions. These manuals are supplied by the aircraft manufacturers, and were determined after long and expensive testing programs. If the pilot believes that a runway length is inadequate for the aircraft weight and conditions, it is
his responsibility to request that air traffic control send him to another runway or, if necessary, to another airport. So that ATC can send him to another airport, the pilot is required to have a half-hour's flying time of fuel when he reaches his destination airport. (In the US, at least. Not all countries follow US rules, though most do.) ATC is then able to send him to an airport a half-hour away in perfect safety. This is taken seriously in the industry - pilots have been cashiered for having only 28 minutes worth of fuel.
It is just silly to blame politics for what was almost certainly the pilot's error. That has, of course, not yet been determined. The politics of establishing pilot error are another matter altogether, but never conducted in the public domain.