The captain assisted the FO with manual braking. Both crew reported that they could feel the
rudder/brake pedals ‘pulsing’, which indicated the antiskid system was operating. The crew
elected to keep reverse thrust deployed to assist with braking.
The FO reported that he was focusing on the red runway end lights and noticed the aircraft drift
slightly right, which he then corrected to bring the aircraft back onto the centreline.
To some this may sound like nit-picking but there may be an interesting hidden lesson here. When I read "the captain assisted the FO with manual braking" and later "the FO noticed the aircraft drift slightly right which he then corrected to bring the aircraft back on the centreline," it made me wonder exactly who was steering the aircraft while at the same time both were applying the brakes? It is rather tricky having two people applying full brakes with rudder pedals not centralised because one of them is simultaneously also using rudder to rectify for a lateral deviation. Were they both on the brakes correcting for lateral deviation? Was there any operational need for the captain to "assist the FO" with manual braking?
We all know it can be quite distracting to the PF to feel the other pilot riding the rudder pedals. A case perhaps of the FO thinking who is flying this machine?
If the captain was that concerned the FO was not applying enough braking (otherwise he would not have felt the need "assist" him in manual braking), it would have been better for the captain to call "I have control" and finish the job himself. You can't have two Bob's each way in a situation like this? The ATSB reporter who wrote the final draft seems to have missed that fact that both pilots applying brakes simultaneously but not evenly, could have confused the anti-skid system and perhaps inadvertently extended the landing run?