"Maybe the fact that neither of them called a go-around makes them both grossly negligent...."
Maybe that neither of the crew recognised the situation, or did not recognised the need for a go-around.
Until all of the circumstances are explained and the AAIB report is published, no judgement should be made, either by us in speculation or by the operator who should have greater awareness of the facts.
Negligence is associated with wilful violation; no one has suggested that this is an issue in this incident. Violation implies intent, no self respecting professional pilot intends to make an error, let alone endanger the aircraft. The crew’s intent might be best be explained by their subsequent performance in landing the aircraft – very professional.
I assume that all of us strive to be professional, but that does not exempt us from error.
If the report of ‘an operational change of destination’ and the suggestion that this was the message being transmitted late in the approach is true, then the behaviours of both the operator and ATC would also have to be considered. Simple distractions should be avoided, but those which could impact the crew’s mental capacity with further assessment and decision making must be avoided in critical phases of flight. The application of human factors by being aware of the situation from other viewpoints - CRM - applies to everyone involved with aircraft.
Maybe the fact that neither of them called a go-around makes them … human … which would have caught many other fully competent pilots out.
I agree with the viewpoints provided by LD Max