I've been following this for a while as I think it's an interesting case (thankfully no fatalities). Why on earth was there no call for a go-around??
There's a interesting footnote in the NSTB documentation that's just been released.
SWA had an avoidance bid system, which was mandated by the collective bargaining agreement between SWA and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association and similar to systems operated by other airlines, that allowed first officers to designate up to three captains that they did not want to be paired with for their monthly bid sequence of trips. If the system paired a first officer with one of his avoided captains, it would remove the first officer from thattrip and give him another trip. A first officer would only enter the employee number into the system and it did not request a reason be given for avoiding a captain. This system was not actively monitored by SWA and data was accessed only with approval by the vice president of flight operations. In 2009, the captain had an average of 4.8 avoidance bids against her each month** (ranging from 4 to 6 each month). During that same year, 15.9% of the 353 OAK-based captains had one or more avoidance bids and the average of those captains was 3.1 bids per month. In the 12 months preceding the accident, the average number of avoidance bids against the captain was 6.9 (ranging from 5 to 9 each month). During that same time period, 15% of the 367 OAK-based captains had one or more avoidance bids and the average of those captains was 2.8 bids per month.
** after this point the captain received CRM training.
I am not a pilot, so apologise in advance if my comments do not make sense, but as a layman, I do not understand why a PM in this situation would take control at 400ft AGL before landing, surely this is a recipe for disaster?