The crew were both experienced and the cross-cockpit gradient was normal. The Captain flew the aircraft using the autopilot and then subsequently the HUD, and the aircraft was delivered adequately correctly to the runway. The potential impact of a different crew procedure in this event is probably confined to the planning, management and decision-making for which the crew were criticised. 

If a PicMA procedure had been in use, there might have been

1) more discussion of the landing conditions 

2) the Captain might have given more consideration to the alternative of landing on the opposite runway as the aircraft was capable of an RNAV approach

3) being responsible for the communications, he might have been more pro-active in obtaining current runway and wind situational information

4) he might have been more pro-active in checking and adhering to the advisory and limiting information available.

5) Although the FO was criticised for not calling for a go-around, it us unlikely that this would have been affected by use of a PicMA procedure at the elevant stage of the landing.