Originally Posted by
layman54
The best (in my view) argument against the airlines is that it was PSA policy that their pilots should not accept a diversion from runway 1 to runway 33 if they had not already briefed this approach (in addition to briefing the approach to runway 1). The pilot in charge hadn't done this but nevertheless accepted the diversion. This looks bad of course but there is little reason to believe that the omission of the briefing made any difference.
I think the point here is that, had the 5342 pilots followed PSA procedures (i.e., not accepting an approach that wasn’t previously briefed), they would have refused the circle 33 offer by ATC, thereby avoiding the accident.
Reviewing the 5342 CVR, runway 33 was not included in the CA/PF’s approach briefing about 35 minutes prior to the expected landing time. The CA/PF did do an abbreviated briefing for 33
after the circle 33 option was accepted.