we've heard this over and over ad nauseum for the last few hundred posts and it doesn't provide any closure on this accident cause while wasting a good deal of bandwidth in this thread.
give it a rest
The only thing that is worth while discussing are the methods available to mimimize missing of the basic items by the human. That has been discussed as well but is still open for positive contributions from knowledgeable folks
I think you are treating incompetence as if it was a human error.
Of course we all know that humans are susceptible to errors, the best pilots can make the worst mistakes, the system is only made safe by trapping and mitigating such errors, not by relying on them never occuring, etc etc etc. I doubt anyone contributing here lack that understanding.
But not monitoring airspeed on final is too basic to fall under the "to err is human" heading. The system shall be
pilot proof, not
idiot proof. Sweeping every display of pilot error under the same "human error" blanket risks making one blind to an industry wide training problem, if such a problem exists.
Is there no difference between errors made because all humans make mistakes, and errors made because the pilot was not a sufficiently good pilot? Until 25 years ago, all errors were put in the second category; for the last 25 years, all errors have been put in the first category. Perhaps it is time we start recognizing that both type of errors are made, and the same types of solution will not solve both types of problem.
I think it is striking how many of the recent accidents that appear as if they could have been prevented by better and, most importantly,
more training. Looking back 10, 15, 20 years, that was not the case; back then, you could almost always identify "system failures" in each accident, and find solutions in terms of technical and procedural improvements. Is it just me who see a change in that pattern?