It seems like the popular position to deride both managers and computers.
It is more the case that some of those in flight standards chairs are simply out of touch with real life accidents over the years. How many of these people assiduously read accident reports published in various journals such as Flight International, Aviation Week, Business & Commercial Aviation, NTSB and AAIB accident reports and a host of excellent readily available flight safety reading matter?
I have heard this same speculation leveled at NASA as well. It's pure speculation that honestly doesn't make much sense. If these people were so out of touch then I doubt safety would continue to be as good as it is, statistically speaking. It's still important to remember that these accidents are very exceptional, not every day instances of common failures that the standards authorities are ignoring.
In the USA, near Washington, DC, a computer has been accused of failing and allowing two trains (like subways) to collide, killing 9.
computers, HA.
I have seen accusations leveled at the faulty track sensors. Sensors are not computers. I'd expect a crash if a human operator were struck blind but didn't know it. Wouldn't you? Automation trades human error for computer error. Those that automatically assume humans always make better choices should take a hard look at accident history (current and past, in other fields too) to see that humans have their share of issues too.