Originally Posted by
Furniture Saver
Fascinating that an 18-page report contains no explanation of why the co-pilot could not land the aircraft. This was the ‘cause’ of the accident (AAIB purpose: ‘…to improve aviation safety by determining the circumstances and causes of air accidents and serious incidents, and promoting action to prevent reoccurrence’) and deserved exploration.
That's a tad unfair on the AAIB. While it doesn't specifically use what the NTSB terms "probable cause" and "contributory factors", the section in the report labelled "Conclusions" is pretty unambiguous:
"The aircraft suffered a hard landing as a result of the approach being continued after it became unstable after the aircraft had past the point where the crew had declared the approach stable and continued.
Despite high rates of descent being observed beyond the stable point, together with associated alerts the crew elected to continue to land.
Had the approach been discontinued and a GA flown, even at a low height, while the aircraft may have touched down the damage sustained may have been lessened.
While the OM did not specifically state that an approach was to remain stable beyond the gate on the approach, the FCTM was specific that, if it did not remain stable, a GA should be initiated.
The commander may have given the co-pilot the benefit of doubt and believed she had the ability to correct an approach that became unstable in the final few hundred feet of the approach.
However, had there been any doubt, a GA should be executed."
Without the ability to get inside the heads of the crew, what more would you like to have seen?