Hmm. Kicked a hornet's nest here, I have.
It's more than 30 degrees, closer to 40 degrees.
Semantics! The DME could have been used to put the aeroplane on a 3° approach profile that would have been far better than what happened. It doesn't matter that it's offset! You manoeuvre visually
to the right to join Final. The approach analysis (in the office, by Flight Ops beforehand) should have worked out a DME cutoff after which a Straight-in must not be attempted. And what went on during the route-proving flight? Surely such a difficult approach would have been test-flown?
So because the ATSB don't mention them, they have none? What rubbish.
OK, the ATSB didn't mention them (as I have already said). You indicate pretty firmly ("What rubbish") that they
do have SOPs. What are they,
for this type of approach?
And the evidence is where that it wasn't?
Are you seriously suggesting that they
were following an SOP?
Yes, seriously. Look at the chart - missed approach at 500' at 2.9 DME. How is that on a 3 degree profile?.
Again, my remark on this is directed at the ATSB "this was a dive and drive" comment. With a MAPt at 2.9DME, it is your choice to be at 500ft. My comment re "profile" relates to how you get there. I'll spell it out. 3x-400ft. That clears the 5DME step and provides a constant descent profile to hit the MAPt at the MDA. Fly a lower profile if you like. Just fly
A profile. You will obviously be way below the runway profile but you would know that it was planned that way and so it shouldn't be a "threat", per se. Let the aeroplane level off and do the circle (you would obviously be too far offset to land straight-in at that point).
Now the EGPWS may not like you being at that point, but that should've become evident during the route-proving flight.