Thanks JJ A4. What you've written is IAW EU Ops and makes sense. It is dated October 12 2017. Were these the requirements at the time of the crash, or updated from the report? The call of "lights only', or "ground contact" early in an approach had always been taught to me as an absolute No No. It risked, as in the case, continuation bias, yet it was an AC SOP. The report says they think they saw the first 2 approach lights and during the analysis of what they were seeing decided to continue. We do not know if these '2 lights' were 2 single centreline lights, or 2 bars of approach lights. I would have thought that 2 single lights would be difficult to assess as approach lights, whereas 2 bars would be confirmation. Single lights do not allow assessment of position, attitude, bank angle, create of closure: a horizontal bar does; and if you can see a horizontal bar you can also see centreline lights of the approach light system. Thus there needs to be a wider definition of 'approach lights'. In EASA I believe it says at least 1 horizontal bar. This allows you to determine roll attitude. Remembering that the rules are written for many types of a/c and operation, i.e. even hand flown twin pistons. 'Runway centreline lights' even needs expanding e.g. how many? Surely if you can see centreline lights you must be able to see Threshold lights as well; and therefore centreline lights on their own do not define a runway. Centreline lights need to be in combination with other lights.
It seems you are local to Canada. What is the now published requirement to confirm the vertical profile inside FAF?