Both crew were low experience, the Captain 200 hrs in command and the F/O only 500 hours total. Major thunderstorms were active in the area and displayed on the aircraft radar although ATC did not inform the crew of a serious deterioration that had occurred.   

The localiser-only approach was conducted with a nunber of breaches of SOPs and was high and fast when the FO reported having sighted the airport. The crew decided to attempt to land but after passing DH encountered very heavy rain and initiated a go around at about 200ft. The gear was not raised and at about 400 ft the aircraft encountered a microburst windshear. The aircraft pitched nose down and was destroyed. Rescue services were delayed as the "emergency siren was not heard due to "the raging thunderstorm over the airfield at the time of the accident".

The report considered that the crew were well aware of the thunbderstorm position from their discussions of the weather radar. The "Runway sighting by the Co-Pilot probably precipitated the decision to attempt a landing" .... "To attempt a landing from this stage of flight, in the presence of extreme weather being indicated on the weather radar, is indicative of inappropriate decision making process in the cockpit and inadequate CRM. While carrying out the high speed and unstabilized Approach, the crew probably faced a situation overload. This may have also affected crew‟s decision making capability."

If the crew had been using a PicMA procedure, it is likely that 

1) the Captain would have had more caution in attempting to land, as he would have been better placed to evaluate the actual conditions and obtain better information from ATC.

2) the F/O would probably have needed more time to organise any change of plan involved, which would have hindered the Captain's unwise attempt to hurry and get onto the ground.