Originally Posted by
deefer dog
The fact of the matter is the FO screwed up at a very late stage in the approach. The Captain warned him that things were getting out of shape, and then she screwed up the recovery after she had taken control. It was a clusterfkuc, but of course the report can't simply state that....it MUST find a reason.
All of us make a bad landing from time to time...and many times we can't explain why. Often times there is no explainable reason, but of course the NTSB have to find some tosh to write....and that is exactly what they did this time.
I am disappointed by the quality of some of the accident reports I have read lately from more than one agency. The investigators seem to sometimes get hung up on minutiae that really had nothing to do with the accident but was a technical violation of an SOP and focus on that instead of the real cause.
In other accident reports where it is known that there was a weak captain based on multiple previous failures(circumstances known to me), this information has been completely ignored but the reality was that any competent captain would have avoided the accident. Focus was also on the makeup of the checklist. I recently saw another accident where the screw ups were so bad that incompetency was the only explanation(at least for a significant portion of final cause) yet no mention of this.
I think the paragraph that I have quotes from the previous poster is what really matters as an explanation for this accident. These things happen on approaches where SOPs were exactly followed as well. The question is...what was done about it. To suggest that a late flap setting is part of the cause will make some people think that if only an exact meeting the stable approach requirements would have prevented this accident, which is not the case at all.
Look at the big picture investigators.