Thanks, LFA.
Not criticising the crew here, criticising the report.
From the report:
The training provider who trained the pilot of the occurrence landing stated that they used the Boeing 737 NG/MAX flight crew training manual (FCTM) when training pilots to land. However, they taught pilots to mentally prepare for the flare at 30 ft and to flare at 25 ft rather than 20 ft.
Anyone who has flown and/or conducted training on a B737 would know that if a newbie tries to flare at 20 ft, they will end up flaring at 10 ft, which is exactly what happened on the subject landing, and is exactly why landing is taught as per the above quote.
However, after the external type rating, the airline conducted their own simulator sessions and:
As part of their OCC, the operator conducted 8 simulator training sessions with FOs. During the last training session, the operator trained the pilots to begin flaring the aircraft at 20 ft and went through the steps for the recovery of bounced landings.
It appears that this last simulator session may have introduced confusion (as inferred by the ATSB), followed by check-captain-itis:
After the occurrence, the FO reported that although the operator’s training manuals and the OCC training required pilots to flare the aircraft at 20 ft, they were more comfortable flaring at 30 ft as originally trained. They advised that during all landings conducted prior to the occurrence flight, flare was initiated at 30 ft. The FO recalled that on the day of the occurrence, due to flying with a check captain, they made a last-minute decision to follow the operator’s procedures to initiate flaring the aircraft at a height of 20 ft.
The ATSB is pointing the finger at the training technique of thinking "flare" at 30 ft. Barking up the wrong tree. That is an entirely appropriate flaring technique for a B737, particularly for new pilots. I suspect that none of the authors of this report have ever flown a B737.
Regardless, the late flare was not the root cause of the hard landing*. The initial touch down was not recorded as hard, it resulted in a 3 ft bounce. This needs to then become a bounce recovery. The hard landing* (if it even was one) was actually the result of bounce recovery technique, which is not addressed by the findings of the report at all.
*Boeing provides information (not addressed in the ATSB report) that a QAR report of a hard landing and associated G-loadings are not accurate. The most accurate assessment of a hard landing comes from the crew, and the report states that neither crew regarded it as a hard landing. So this report could actually be all about nothing other than a bounce which was recovered.