@FlyEJF
That landing would have been classified as a "hard landing" on our products (any case where the landing is neither a three-pointer nor "both mainwheels together" counts as a hard landing, because it's outside the expected landing attitude so the load transfer to the structure may be out of the normal range). The criteria for a "hard landing" are in both the AFM and AMM IIRC, and the crew would be aware of them, and would be expected to report it. there's then a defined maintenance procedure to (a) confirm that it was "hard" and (b) define the inspections then required.
In the worst case the gear would have to be removed. (Assuming that nothing else broke, as if it did chances are it won't matter whether the crew reports it, ATC will notice the plane obstructing the runway!)
I suspect the AVRO procedures are similar.
@llondel. That 5.5 deg nominal glideslope about halves the reaction time compared to a 3 degree g/s when you think in terms of descent rate. What might simply be a "bad" landing elsewhere is likely to be that much more dramatic as a result. That's one reason you're supposed to have specific approval for London City.