Originally Posted by
DaveReidUK
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:
Without the ability to get inside the heads of the crew, what more would you like to have seen?
I've checked if your quotation of the report is accurate. It is.
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.
(from
https://assets.publishing.service.go...JMCY_07-22.pdf )
What I'd like to have seen is a report without grammatical mistakes (past/passed). This is in the 'Conclusion' section, which, presumably, has been read and approved by at least one other person than the writer, and who could be assumed to either have decent English, or access to a technical writer/copy editor.
"It's just a typo!", you may cry - and indeed, writing 'has passed' or 'was past' both parse correctly, even if the sentence structure is strained. However, the AAIB is meant to demonstrate competence, so readers of the report have confidence in the conclusions, and if a simple error like this gets though, it makes the reader wonder how many other errors in their work are not so noticeable. Presentation is important if you want to appear competent. Details matter, especially when your organisation is expected to routinely make painstaking investigations. If you can't get the basics right, what else is going wrong?