[AnimalMuppet]

> the passengers likely never knew anything went wrong.

If the deceleration varied as much as the report said, then the passengers probably could tell. That was very different from a normal landing. If that wasn't enough, being towed to the terminal might have given them another clue.

> One extra thing going wrong here, in the wrong direction (anything that impaired braking or pilot reaction time) would likely have led to loss of life.

Well, it would have lead to the plane running off the end of the runway. What's past the end of that particular runway? A cliff? A river? Or just another 100 meters of grass leading up to a perimeter fence, then more flat ground for some distance beyond it? If it doesn't overrun the runway too far (say, 100 or 200 meters), no, that doesn't seem likely to lead to loss of life - not unless there's some specific hazard there.

[dmurray]

According to the first comment on TFA, it's in a built up area. I checked Google maps [0] and it's pretty bad: 50m of tarmac (no EMAS I think), 50m of grass, then a minor road with commercial buildings.

Regardless, that's one to be considered another aggravating circumstance, not an additional failure. When deciding whether this was a close call, you can treat it as if every runway is wet and in a permanent tailwind and immediately followed by a wooden building full of schoolchildren.

[0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/u4eFmqDAysMVbbWC8

[AnimalMuppet]

Oh, absolutely. You treat it as if there is no margin.

And you don't put wooden buildings full of schoolchildren immediately past the end of runways.

[account42]

Unless I am mistaken, runway 10 is west to east so it would have gone through the parking lot and then into the river. That also the direction I remember most planes landing there.