markkal, as you probably realize the majority of views on this subject suffer from hindsight bias and thus often incorrectly focus attention on more noticeable operational aspects. Also, bias can affect the choice of words to describe situations, activities, and outcomes.
For example, ‘incapacitation’ may be better represented as a temporary inability to ‘think’ due to mental limitations from the stress of surprise or inadequate training. Similarly ‘pilot error’ is a categorization of the outcome of human behavior in situations which might encourage poor performance or again depend on adequate training; it would be better to discuss behaviors unsuited to the situation and thus investigate the reasons for this.
As a generalization, these aspects can be thought of as either an incorrect assessment of the situation and thus incorrect action, or with good situation assessment, the choice of inappropriate action.
Post #1 identifies possible solutions with non-technical skills training to aid 'thinking’ – the control of surprise and decision making; however the most critical aspect in both cases is situation assessment.
Taking a broader view of major accidents, then situation awareness is a significant contributing factor. This could be due either to changes in behavior and training, or that the situations which have to be assessed are more complex; probably all of these.
Therefore before rushing into more flight training (synonymous with ‘blame and train’) the industry should consider the non-technical aspects and possible root issues like airmanship and experience, knowledge and thinking skills. Neither should we forget technical improvements and regulatory (social) influences; all of those aspects which contribute to the modern operating environment.
Errors in Aviation Decision Making.