scifi
Strange how this has become a debate about the skills deficiencies of fellow pilots. I do wish Ppruners would 'Play the Ball, and not the Man'.
The real reason behind the heavy landing was because of windshear, caused by turbulence from buildings on the airfield site. The approach speed was correctly maintained, but the aircraft got caught in wind rotor.
Your interpretation of the events differs from what was reported in the ATSB initial report:
At about 1320 Eastern Daylight-saving Time (EDT),[2] the flight crew were conducting a visual approach to runway 35 at Canberra. The calculated approach speed was 113 kt. At 1320:52, nine seconds prior to touch down, the aircraft approached the runway at a height of about 107 ft, slightly above the desired approach path. The flight crew reported that at about this time, there was turbulence and changing wind conditions. Flight data showed that at this time, speed had increased to 127 kt. In response to the increasing speed, the first officer reduced power to near flight idle.
Over the next five seconds, the descent rate increased significantly and the speed reduced.
During the last 50 ft of descent, the captain twice called for an increase in power and then called for a go-around. The first officer responded by increasing the power at about the same time as the aircraft touched down.
At 1321:01, the aircraft touched down heavily on the main landing gear and rear fuselage. Assessing that2 the aircraft was under control, the captain immediately called to the first officer to cancel the go-around and then took control of the aircraft. The flight crew completed the landing roll and taxied to the gate without further incident.
I bolded the airspeeds, as well as the FO's response. Further along the report
At the time of the touchdown, the descent rate was 928 feet per minute, the speed was 105 kt
So at 107' AGL the speed was Vapp+14, and the aircraft landed at Vapp-8; a speed reduction of 22 knots.
NOT what I'd call a correctly maintained approach speed.
Also look to the first ATSB quote where the Captain twice called for an increase in power before calling for a go-around.
So perhaps debating skills deficiencies isn't that much of a stretch.
With a 10-15 Knot Easterly, the mechanical turbulence and "rotors" from the buildings don't occur, as the buildings that cause all the grief are on the Western side of the runway.
Having said that, I've flown that approach in a Q300 and Q400 more times than I care to remember, and as I wrote in an earlier quote on this thread, the approach to runway 35 will bite you in the arse if you're not careful.
I don't know if you've ever flown a large Turboprop. If you have, you should know that reducing the power levers to "near flight idle" at 107' AGL is going to
guarantee you a heavy landing unless you re-apply most or all of that power as soon as your speed gets back to your desired range.
DIVOSH!