The conclusion in 2.2.2.3 that the cockpit gradient didnt play a role in the crash is frankly suspect.By advocating the use of a monitored approach(a procedure designed to combat adverse cockpit gradient) in its recommendations,the report seems to be contradicting itself.
Disappointingly,the report didnt discuss what role the first officer had in the decision to take only 15 minutes extra fuel.Also no broader discussion on the general fuel policy adopted by the company.Did an in-house fuel league table exist whereby pilots compete for brownie points?What effect did the fuel status have on the captain's decision NOT to go-around when it was mandatory to do so.