. . . don't believe ... any reference to a side step in this accident.
"side-step" aural and visual cues to spur pilots to an approach-maneuver.
NTSB proposed (?from the alpa-submission?) that that lack of the
phraseology, and lack of a graphical-depiction, was the main problem: leading to the pilots' omission / misconception of the final maneuver needed to align with the other rwy 23R.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletter.../A80_59_60.pdf
The exchange-argument of communication, between NTSB and FAA, are found in the history of the recommendation:
history
FAA's initial reaction to that ntsb-rec':
. . . THE SIDESTEP MINIMUMS ARE PUBLISHED ON THE CHART ALONG WITH STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS ... AND CIRCLING MINIMUMS. A SEPARATE ... CHART OF THE SIDESTEP MANEUVER IS NOT WARRANTED ... A HINDERANCE.... PILOT MUST UNDERSTAND HIS ATC CLEARANCE IF HE IS TO SELECT THE SIDESTEP MINIMUMS . . .
Then the NTSB countered:
. . . We remain concerned that aircrews can be misled by the sidestep maneuver procedures as they are portrayed on standard US instrument approach charts, and we believe there is a need for a plan view of the sidestep maneuver for clarity. We note that Jeppesen has revised the Mexico City instrument approach chart indicating the transition to runway 23R for landing. This action would be responsive to the board's expressed concern if it were applied to all charts . . .
There were several more exchanges about depiction of "side step" maneuver to the parallel rwy.