Incomplete Pass, er, Questions
Without getting into any of the contentions about the mechanics of flying specific approach profiles or the contours and structure of any of those profiles, there is one aspect of the, shall we call it, back-and-forth with underfire, about the blameworthiness of the pilots, which should be called out. Anyone who has taken a witness's statement in a preliminary setting or situation, when the factual picture is far from complete, will admit it is a rare indeed situation where a more complete factual recitation - through Q&A - is not elicited once the facts reach their ultimate level of development or discovery.
The point this sets up is simple: the snippets of verbal responses the pilots are quoted in the preliminary Board report as having said were the product of a rather preliminary type of questioning by Board staff, were they not? If a detailed, meticulous and methodical Q&A were to be conducted upon a full factual record, common sense and experience strongly indicate that a clearer picture would emerge about there having been a moment of shocking revelation when what they thought was 28R was shown to be the taxiway instead. When exactly this moment occurred, I would argue, is not determined by the snippets of verbal responses quoted in the preliminary report. Of course the apparent failure to preserve the CVR makes the pilots look worse than they already did (and the carrier, and possibly FAA), and causes some presumably significant (useful and relevant) information to be unavailable. But that fact does not convert an ambiguous set of short-hand answers into a detailed, moment-by-moment timeline. Particularly with respect to the moment when the nature of the concrete they had had in sight on the first approach was revealed with accuracy.
If this is giving too much credit to the ambiguities apparent in the reported statements by the crew, I am sure various posters will drive right at it and cause it to dive into oblivion.