AlexL,
These pilots, as most / all pilots are, were highly skilled and highly trained. They did not intend to crash, they did not intend to kill themselves. therefore one can assume that whatever they did made absolute sense to them at the time. The fact that they made, what to them at the time, with the data they had was a sound a decision and got bitten for it, means that there is a fault with the man-machine interface. End of story.
That reasoning about faults just doesn't hold water.
Let's take as your premise:
* There are three parts to the overall system: man, machine, and interface
Let's take as additional premises:
* [Fault Distribution Premise] Any fault with the overall system occurs because of a fault with one of the parts (also: any fault behavior with the system occurs because of faulty behavior of one of the parts)
* A fault occurred with the overall system
and try to reach the conclusion
* There is a fault with the interface
You can do so if you can show
* There was no fault with man AND there was no fault with machine
You have tried to establish the premise
* There was no fault with man
but even if we buy your argument, you are only half-way there, having not argued for the other half of the conjunct.
But, even given that, I don't think anyone experienced with human factors in aviation accident investigation would buy your premise that experienced pilots who don't want to kill themselves don't make critical errors. Indeed, there is a long list of accidents in which such pilots have indeed made critical errors which are not otherwise explained.
PBL