Unsafe Air NZ Landing

[Gate_15L]

In the words of the investgator's findings....

The captain compromised the safety of the flight by not initiating a missed approach when the aeroplane reached the decision height and the meteorological conditions were not suitable to land.

How far do we have to compromise safety before we call it "unsafe"? When we hit the ground in a heap?

[PENKO]

Is it safe to drive through a red light with your eyes closed?
Of course not!

So how can some suggest it is not unsafe to descend below minimums in IMC? If 100 feet was safe, then why keep the minimums at 200 feet?

Anyway, as others have stated, the check airman and the FO should have taken over much earlier if this guy was really not responding to standard calls.

[50 50]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a decision height the height at which the decision to continue the approach or conduct a missed approach must be made? Not a do not fly below height?
Had the captain made the decision at the decision height with a rate of decent of 600fpm (for an example, I don't fly the big steel) then he would have been below that height by the time he has commenced the missed approach, but also legal.
I'm assuming it was an ILS given the minima, as long as he is within tolerances and decides to conduct a missed approach at the decision height, then the wheels can touch down as he is powering up, and STILL be legal!

Or I may be completely wrong.

[Global Nomad]

Not sure this could be called an example of a good self reporting system.

The check captain correctly failed the student for breaking CAA regulations and the operator was obliged to report this breach to the regulator.

Air NZ is prone to nepotism, perhaps not as prevalent now but you only have to read the TAIC report to see it still alive and well in this case.

[belowMDA]

So I wonder what sort of vis that ATR crew had at minimums then?