As course_profile said, looking at the pile of smoking twisted metal and saying 'well, they _should_ have been able to land just fine, so no lessons to learn here about a hugely busy major international airport in the richest country in the world turning all its electronic landing aids off and thinking that's not a potential safety issue' is not going to sit well with those of us who pay to ride in the back of planes flown by the steely eyed heroes of the sky in the front.
I'm sure we would all like to think that we have 'Sully' in the driving seat when something goes tits up (like the airbus you are on turning into a glider over a major city with only a river to try to land on), but you don't have to be an 'aviation expert' to know that for every 'Sully' flying passengers around the sky there has to be an equal & opposite 'Anti-Sully' who can't cope at all when something sufficiently out of their comfort zone occurs. And that presumably even the "Sully's" of this world aren't entirely infallible on their worst days.
It doesn't matter that 'we know nothing about aviation', the bottom line is that as punters, whether you think we are entitle to or not, we damned well will expect that a) If all the navaids and hi-tech landing aids at an airport do conk out then YES the drivers of a modern highly automated robotic super jet can still get everybody down in one piece with no drama, but that b) NO they should damn well never be asked to prove it absent earthquake or other calamity, and especially not just because one of the worlds busiest airports can't be bothered to find a way to provide the services we expect to be there to make our flights safer.