broadreach;
I might guess that PJ2's post could refer, in part, to Kulverstuka's #475, taken from another post but seeming to describe an atmosphere on the flight deck resembling road rage.
While it seems pretty straightforward a thing to draw conclusions from such a statement, (ed. the reference statement made by a crew member), I think we really have to be cautious. We don't know context, the people, what caused the remark, when it occurred in the approach and what was going on immediately prior to and after the comment. On the face of it, it seems obvious, but that is precisely what I think is important to avoid, at least until all is known.
Regarding the post, I was more thinking in general terms regarding pilot, aircraft, organizational behaviours in the sense that in drawing early conclusions regarding how things unfolded prior to knowing as much as possible an, "asked-and-answered" perception can curtail further enquiry and understanding and thus miss important, new information. (It's like naming something...once named, an object is then psychologically-categorized and can thus become "invisible" to perception...)
It's nothing new of course...this is a pretty standard approach - I'm just offering the view that expressing ideas on how a crew should have behaved doesn't add to an understanding of what happened. This is different than positing a theory then finding all information available to build a foundation (or not), for the theory.
I'd be interested in the visibility of the reverse-thrust indications for example. I'd be interested in the actual design of the thrust reverse system, which, given circumstances, I think requires very close examination. Crew duty day, schedule pressures etc need to be examined, (all obvious stuff!).
On the other hand, the potential for a successful takeoff should not form a part of any final report not because it wasn't possible but because no report should legitimate a procedure which has been established in the industry as a prohibited and non-standard response. While the possibility may be interesting and even discussed at great length, the case is not arguable without altering long-standing industry policies on going around after reverse thrust has been selected.