Will you guys stop telling everyone to wait for the final report, it is getting a bit tedious. This thread is useful for those of us that are interested in the chains of events that lead to an accident and how to avoid them. They DO involve speculation and exploring dead alleyways but are nevertheless informative. Some theories are plain impossible (due to ignorance of the procedures, the technology, the phisycs, etc I concede that) others may not have been the cause of this accident yet they also provide food for thought. We are all capable of sorting through the wheat and the chaff. If someone comes here to dazzle us with their intimate knowledge of ILS systems, Metro liners, prop feathering systems I am the more grateful for it.
YOU know what this threads are like. You have made your point about waiting for the final report. The thread IS going to continue. If it upsets you in any way, just donīt read it. Simples.
Because pilots are goal oriented and "tunnel vision" can become a problem we have the approach ban. You could also argue that it does not matter what the RVR reading is before or after the OM, all that matters is wether you have the required visual reference at decision altitude. Experience has shown that pilots can get fixated with landing and the approach ban was brought in. The max two approaches unless there is a marked improvement is no different. I agree that in a way we do not need more rules but it certainly is good practice to try twice and fly to the alternate. Unless you have very very good reasons not to.
Wether the third approach was a contributing cause for THIS accident or not it certainly has given me food for thought about why we have that rule in my company and how and why I would attempt a third approach.