Maybe the angles are different for a hard landing?

The geometry limit graph is a rigid body solution, e.g., it is a static clearance outcome. The dynamic solution can be different for other parts of the aircraft. The compressed oleo geometry is a limit if the gear stays in one piece. The aft body does have bending under inertial load and from the interaction of gear load v elevator/horizontal stab loads, but they are not very large. A significant change does occur for the engine cowl clearance as a response to gear loads and timing of the resultant torsion of the wing box and the engine pylon. I have investigated a couple of landings where a pod scrape occurred well within the geometry envelope, but the pod still moved enough with the wing to touch the pod on the ground. The process of those institutionally was interesting, the system wanted to hang a bunch of crews trying to ascertain why they had not picked up the damage on the intervening flights, as in both cases they didn't want to accept that the last crew who did hard landings with low pitch attitude and roll were responsible. The OEM responded in both cases confirming the geometry was a static model... which raised furore within the company as being misleading to their fine crew. 3g landings on one wheel near a geometry limit for both pitch and roll may result in a visit to the spray booth.

On the Airbus fleet it is, I think that is standard for Airbus ops though. As soon as you kick off the AP the approach capability degrades to CAT 1. In Canada I believe you require a HUD to do a CAT II or better hand flown. The only aircraft with a HUD are the 787s and the 737s. The A220 will come with dual HUDs installed. Never flown the 787 or 737 so I can't speak for those.

Auto pilot, auto throttles or HUD not required to fly a CAT II by hand... Some Dash 8s, Bombardier CRJs and some older B727s in some airlines in the USA way back in the 80s or early 90s with the proper equipment could be hand flown to CAT IIIA minimums.

Fail-active autoland made CATII safe,

HK AAIA Final Report just issued. Interesting reading.

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Air%...28%20Dec21.pdf
.

As to be expected. Don't rock the boat, a good solid PIO that CAD can hang their hat on and a few minor training and operational recommendations. AC off the hook and HKIA without a stain.

Might I make a couple of recommendations for future operations?

1) Do not expect a pilot after a 17.41 duty day at a body time of 0200 to carry out his first landing on his first widebody into an unfamiliar destination. They will be as sharp as a beachball and task saturated at the moment the autopilot comes out. Equally do not expect a 64 year old training captain to be sharp enough to catch a trainee's error under the same fatigue conditions.

2) If there is a windshear warning 12 minutes before an aircraft lands of minus 25 knots it might be a smart idea to transmit it to landing aircraft. To then dismiss it in the report as not relevant is strange.

3) ZFT to widebody training on first landing, it might be a good idea to mandate to take the autopilot out above 1,000 ft so that the pilot can assess the roll rate and feel of the aircraft and experience the peripheral vision in roll which is not experienced in a simulator.

4) if ATC has just seen an incipient aluminium dust cloud at the touchdown point on a landing runway, it might be smart to send a checker car with a brush to do a runway inspection at the first available opportunity.

And so on add infinitum until the next incident/accident. Fatigue is brushed under the mat and the most economical way of training pilots wins the day.

It seems very strange that a new joiner on a specific type gets his/her very first feel of the airplane on (very) short final. A short final this person isn't familiar with at that.

Give people some stick time climbing out, then gradually build out the exposure, including some proper time hand flying the long approach. On the candidate's first landing, the TC should be sharp as a razor to take control at the first sign of trouble. Especially on the 300, which is a bit less forgiving on pitch deviations

What should have been a nice and memorable training experience for the FO, now potentially has significantly dented their confidence. And I can't help but feeling for the captain. What an inglorious way to end a career. I understand this was his last landing as he was close to retirement.

Reminds me of the captain for a jet cargo operator that descended into trees a few miles short of the runway(prior to climbing out again) on his last flight. In that case, I was told the company gave him one more flight so his last flight would be a good one.