Ampan,
Good first post, which I will re-read and consider. Certainly some food for thought in there.
That said, taking things as they stand, I would like to make one small point by way of comparison to show that it is possible for pilots do do things which, had they acted differently, may have caused a different outcome; but fo rth epilots to be exonerated as they were acting reasonably with the information they had and the situation as they reasonably believed it to be.
That comparison is a
DC10 crash in May 1979 (AA191) at O'Hare. An engine separated, causing loss of power and assymmetry, but importantly, loss of systems and hydraulics. The crew had been trained to reduce to V2 (around 140kts) after an engine loss; however this crew did not know the engine had separated and certainly did not know they were losing hydraulic fluid, causing the left slats to retract (so raising that wing's stall speed to 160kts). Hence in reducing speed, the crew (by a very literal interpretation) made the aircraft uncontrollable.
However they could be exonerated as they were doing what they thought was reasonable, according to their training.
I will re-read Ampan's post and chew it over.