At the risk of being controversial, it is important to note that the Industry's operations are based on risk assessment and risk management.
For the very great proportion of occasions and events within that set, the "standard" approach will work pretty well and is commended. We note that the standard procedure is not necessarily the best but is structured to provide a high probability of a successful outcome.
However, we must accept that, infrequently, circumstances are such that the usual procedure may be quite inappropriate .. should we vary our actions to suit ? do we have the capability even to detect the subtle differences from the norm ?.. is there even a sensible answer ?
Industry history has numerous examples of good outcomes and bad following out of left field unusual situations ... I suggest that it comes down to a mix of knowledge, skill ... and a very large helping of good or back luck .... which determines the ultimate outcome.
I think back to just two tragic cases where the crew apparently did all the "right" things ... but died with their passengers ... [Concorde at CDG and the DC10 at O'Hare]. Would the outcomes have been better had the Concorde been dumped unceremoniously back on the ground ? ... had the DC10 maintained the initial higher airspeed rather than pitch up to achieve V2 ? ... hard to say with any certainty at all.
United 232 .. I suspect Al Haynes et al would concede that Lady Luck played a part in keeping the toll as low as it was ....
While we push standardisation for a bunch of very good reasons, flying generally is not about guaranteed, black and white outcomes ... it is about risk and probabilities ... about loading the dice towards the desired, favourable outcome .... about constraining and controlling ill-disciplined operational behaviours ... etc ... etc....