Uplinker, #170, I appreciate your comments and in principle, agree.
You identify a key aspect, the inability to understand after the fact; the human element, human factors, ourselves. There are many different approaches to this, scientific and practical, significantly that by identifying issues which we can learn are of greater value opposed to attempting to ‘understand’ error.
One issue is the inherent uncertainty in situations and human behaviour, humans abhor uncertainty thus fill in the gaps, some of which involves assumptions. e.g your “… supposedly highly trained, examined and experienced individuals cannot do something as simple as …” might assume standards of training, checking, or that the situation as perceived by the crews was ‘simple’.
To us with hindsight yes, but to a surprised crew (or do we assume that crews should not be surprised), their comprehension of the situation is built on what they ‘see’ at that time (that instant which we cannot revisit).
We should not seek absolute understanding, nor comparison; instead consider the uncertainties in the situation, aspects what we don't or cannot know. Avoid what is / was, and alternatively consider what could be / have been. Question if there are issues from which we might learn.
Other posts have diverse views - a simple GA; but with an apparent control malfunction - ‘simple’ is redefined.
‘Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult.’ Von Clausewitz
Uncertainty requires judgement at the time; hindsight assumes knowledge after the fact, clarity, yes-no decisions, and procedural perfection.