Or it's a pilot(s) error.
When will the folk here finally realise that
almost nothing qualifies as 'pilot error'?
Yes, there's
human error, for certain, but to quote my mate Sid, "
no-one goes to work to die".
Fundamentally, and this really is kindergarten HF stuff: people behave as they do because it makes sense to do so.
Remove a pilot from the tactile/sensory/perceptive loop of thrust control and awareness by having stationary thrust levers, then convince him that an action after landing must be performed on only one lever, but allow him, very naturally indeed, to confuse which of the two intended actions he must not do, and yes, you'll have an accident. The pilot won't have a clue about what's going on because there's a horribly deep disconnect between his mental model and the real world - in all its terrifying real-time building-rushing-towards-us glory.
There are a few very deep holes in the Airbus design philosophy. Likewise in Boeing's.
In a Boeing aircraft, we find out about them by experience and training, in light of awkward moments (please don't anyone raise the Helios story here - there are straightforward answers to that).
In an Airbus, we seem to find out about them by fatal accidents.
Can you now cease this pointless discussion?