‘Blame’ is used as a self-satisfying closure for complex, often indeterminate situations (‘wicked problems’).
Assuming that something was understood as an opening analysis risks hindsight bias, or that everyone will have similar understandings, similar thought processes.
UAS could equally be stick-shaker implying stall, or a range of alternative perceptions according to context. Bounding problems with assumption might aid our after-the-fact understanding, but whatever we conclude is only probability, because we can never know what these crews perceived, what was thought, or understood, or any reasoning for action.
Start with a view that the crew acted as they saw the situation (not our view), that humans are an asset to be used and not a hazard to be constrained; this and the above might provide an alternative analysis. Not fact only probable, but an understanding which might better be used to learn from.
As background see:-
https://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/ac...an%20Error.pdf
https://www.ida.liu.se/~729A71/Liter...berti_2001.pdf
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...ndsight-25.pdf Page 10 -
https://www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf
“Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
Man's a kind of Missing Link, fondly thinking he can think.”
“Modern man has the skill; he can do what he will.
But alas - being man he will do what he can.”
“You'll conquer the present suspiciously fast if you smell of the future -- and stink of the past.”
Grooks of Piet Hein