The Bailey article amazes me. Also the positive reception it gets from a number of people. The article appears to be high on judgement (Always, Rigorous, Exactly, Any, Not, Very High - are words used multiple times) and low (and wrong) on facts (difference between Boeing and Airbus, many assumptions, understanding of design, ...). An innocent bystander could get the impression that the author never read an investigation report. There is no sequence of fact, analysis, conclusion, recommendation. It skips that and immediately starts out with the chapter apportioning blame, and surprisingly judging that it was what insurers call "an Act of God". The author says that a pilot saw "exactly what happened" but only gives us 3-4 lines on that. Instead of the very detailed timeline that you would require. Would help to get a second by second transcript of that exact observation. I also find it hard to understand that a trained pilot would not know what the effect of wheels on the ground was for his type. From those pilots who read accident reports you might even expect that they could have read a final report (on another type) which describes what it can mean when only one leg hits the ground. Amazed, yes.