But that cannot be. The pilots of this flight are from a first world nation with a super proud tradition of meticulous training and water tight integrity.
No, they are from Canada.
They have sound fundamentals and very strict checks and balances. The runway layout, the unnecessary runway closures and unhighlighted notams, the ATC, the tiring schedule, the circadian rhythms, and a whole lot of other contributing factors are largely to blame.
Yes, this will likely be the findings....
As noted in other posts by ATC folks...it happens all the time. What is done about it....nothing. Nothing to see here , move along.
Blame, blame, blame...take responsibilty, NO WAY.
The statements by the crew and convenient overwriting of the CVR lead me to suppose this approach wasn't stuffed-up on short final, or 4 miles out due to an illusion, but long before when no attention to detail to what was published and/or briefed regarding the upcoming visual approach to the runway they were (supposed to be) landing on. If they had briefed the critical details of primary guidance aids just like everyone does for an ILS etc, this wouldn't have happened.
Typically, when the FMS Bridge visual or any of the visuals are run on 28R, 28L cannot be used due to the close prox. In that note, it really does not matter that 28L was closed and there was a big white X at threshold. When 28R visual is in use, the lights for 28L would not be there anyways.....forget about all this talk about the 28L lights were not on, so mistook 28R lights for 28L and offset, into the bay......they would never had been on.