Will a finding of "low proficiency in conducting a hands on visual approach" as a cause of this mishap result in the pilots' unions publicly demanding that their members be required to do visual approaches a minimum of two or three times per month to maintain proficiency?
To maintain proficiency you have to have it in the first place. As explained the TQ courses include only a very rudimentary couple of hours on manual flying in an everyday environment. Thus I am discounting the jump through hoops SE handling. Then there is base training conducted in a calm controlled manner using level circuits and timings etc. This puts you in a good slot to make a 2-3nm finals on a good clear day. The real world is not like that; it usually means a descending circuit with anything from 270 degrees turn overhead to a straight in. The skills required to perform these basic manoeuvres are not taught, nor encouraged and so are not maintained. Then one day they are required; the end result is a dog's dinner or worse. The root cause could be said to lie in the approved TQ courses. The foundations have not been laid.
All the guff on here about the fault lying in the A/T FLCH system, and how to design out the 'trap'; let's teach pilots how to fly an a/c and THEN train them how to operate it. Let's encourage them to hone and maintain those basic skills. This is not the case now. The emphasis is on operate, and the emphasis is also on designing fool proof systems, with so many back-ups, that a robotic trained monkey can operate from any educational culture in the world. Everytime something goes wrong (human) the answer is sought in technology. Let's design out the weakest link. I say let's strengthen the weakest link as well. The optimum lies with a combination of the two, but it seems cheaper and more reliable to concentrate on technology.
The single pilot and a dog is not far away.