I'm intrigued by the partial interpretation of evidence (yes, in this thread). First it's an Autoland issue, now some are suggesting that everyone in the cockpit was fixated by a supposed fault.
Which fault was that?
There's an ambiguity in the press release:
The voice recorder has shown that the crew were notified that the left radio altimeter was not
working correctly (via the warning signal “landing gear must go down”).
Provisional data indicates that this signal was not regarded to be a problem.
This can be read in two ways. Many press outlets are taking "notified" in the sense of "made aware" and are stating that the crew knew that the radio altimeter was not working properly. "Notified" can also be used without the implication that the crew correctly interpreted the signal. Hence "this signal was not regarded to be a problem" does not suggest any knowledge of a radio altimeter problem.
Either way, however, the data was discarded, and the crew kept doing what they were doing. There's no suggestion they were chasing some problem other than being behind in a busy environment.
Two other questions come out:
"this problem had occurred twice previously in a similar situation, before landing." This is from the FDR only. What were those approaches like? How's THY maintenance record-keeping in the fifteen years since Valujet 597?
Also somewhere (possibly the press conference), there's the report that, in response to the stick shaker, the FO moved the throttle levers, and then let the A/T move them back again. Huh? Hands off?
In any case, there's no evidence of a crew-distracting "fault". So far as the evidence released to date suggests, the biggest problem in that cockpit was the command gradient. Can some training captains get your attention more than a stick shaker?