A320LGW, et al; recent posts.
re 'you don't go below minimums without visual reference.'
My earlier post #13, asked if operational procedures would allow the crew to continue the approach with the sea in sight at MDA; check ICAO approach procedures, charted procedures, operators specific procedures (local authority).
If the crew's understanding was that contact with 'the airport environ' (or similar wording used in some documents) was allowed, then they could continue the approach having the sea in sight. But would this be a continuous descent approach - encouraged for safety, and better enabled by GPS; or would the aircraft have to fly level until the runway was seen - where the aircraft would have to fly a steep (unstable) approach. (Catch 22)
The inappropriate conclusion of 'deliberate' might reflect ambiguity in rules or guidance; what are operators allowed to do, what interpretations are made, or what happens in real operations. (Work as done vs work as imagined; viewpoint - crew, operator, regulator, investigator, Pprune Pundits)
Thus the crew - from their point of view, may have been able to continue the descent, but with additional risk from increased workload - maintain visual and accurately checking the vertical path, and awareness of height illusion when flying over a horizonless seascape. (Risk mitigation, but from whom; crew first or last, operator, regulator, industry, … point of view)