If it was indeed an ATC guided NDB approach, doesnt that imply a direct responsibility of the ground personal for wrongly reporting the position of the aircraft in relation to the glidepath?
Not really...
The report attempts to desribe the "margin of error" for saying "on glidepath"... we are not talking an ILS needle here, but a "blob" on a screen. If you read the report, you will see references to blob being above the centre of, but still "touching" the, glide slope, and when that is/is not acceptable to describe as "on glide". Clearly open to some interpretation.
However, for much of the approach the aircraft was above the glide, and transitioned low late on due to high V/S - IIRC. The only way an incorrect glideslope call can endanger the aircraft is grossly low v obstacles in the approach path. It is still the pilots' responsibility to go around at minima.
In that the undershoot here was below the airfield, any "error" in calling the glidepath seems irrelevant to the accident. It might have made the visual transition more difficult, but again irrelevant here - there could not have been a visual transition in that weather.
At best there might have been some technical errors on the part of ATC, but they seem to have had zero causal effect on the accident - IMHO
NoD