The hearing
@Tubby Thanks for getting the discussion back on the important stuff.
1. Actually there was some mention of the weather and that indeed the visibility (~10 sm) was adequate for conducting the approach.
2. The aircraft maintained 2,500 ft all the way to FAF, but could have descended to 2,300 ft once established on LOC. Why? Pilot briefed the use of PROF DES and FO said she set that up (though it seems she missed something). Would PROF, properly set up and flown been suitable for the steeper glide path angle?
4. The NA was mentioned during the hearing - but actually there is a NOTAM making the approach available at night - Jepp chart notwithstanding - so it was a legal approach.
5. The 1,000 ft call was supposed to be for 1,000 ft above touchdown - not MSL nor AGL.
6. Not obvious to me what the crew was fixated on, but the lack of verbal callouts by the FO for 500' above touchdown, 100' above minimums and Minimums seems to indicate lack of attention to the vertical situation. As does the continued high VS as they blew through minimums. AP not disconnected as they should have.
The PIC briefed PROF DES for the vertical path. FO said she set it up, but somehow missed something. There was a line of questioning about the critical steps and how obvious it would be if something was missed when setting this mode up. Many cues were mentioned, but I wonder how obvious these would be to pilots who rarely fly non precision approaches and use that mode.
Then the PIC, noting how high they were so close to the airport, chose to use VS, without briefing the change, though the FO noticed. At less than 1,000 ft above touchdown, 1,500 FPM is extreme - outside even UPS criteria for stabilized approach. Shouldn't the approach be discontinued per SOP?