This is an interesting phenomenon in this thread. It was established very early on, within a day or so of the accident that there was nothing "slam dunk" about this approach.
A Squared: I was merely trying to point out that approaches into SFO are not always as 'easy' as some of the jocks on this forum seem to allege.
Having now had the time to trawl back through over 1,000 posts, it seems the flight in question was vectored in down the coast to join left base for 28L. That brings its own difficulties due to the high terrain to the south of the airport. The aircraft might have been 'aligned on final by 14 NM from the runway threshold at 4300 ft', but what speed was it doing? The Flight Aware data seems to suggest it still had a ground speed of around 230 knots. That's not an impossible situation to be in, but nevertheless it presents a challenge in achieving a stabilised approach if not handled correctly. Again, a reasonably fresh crew at the top of their game might not have a problem, but it's a different story altogether for a tired long-haul crew.
Why they didn't recognise the situation earlier and do something about it (ie go around) will no doubt be a focus of the investigation.
I think apologists should ask themselves whether such a caveat would seem quite okay and reasonable.
Bill: Nobody, including me, is 'apologising'. Most of us are merely trying to understand how this happened in a bid to find ways to prevent it happening again.