PA - If a fuel systen had only an 'on' valve, a pump switch and a reserve tank selector valve - it's operation would be deemed very simple - but it's still more complicated than a fuel tank that is always on, allways selected with a pump which comes on with the ignition key (Like a car). An opportunity to screw up is not just a pilot error - it's a system error (perhaps a design error)
You miss the point about 'complexity' - it doesn't mean it's difficult to understand but just that each 'complication' (as in a watch) is an opportunity for a screwup. ANOTHER ONE of which is that : "there is a design eye reference point for seeing the panel. If you can't meet it, you need to be aware" but if you are not and if there are 1000 items of that degree of triviality it is most unlikely that some combination of errors won't be made. (it's not really pilot error - and it is part of the downside of 2 engines)
In aeroplanes you can see the suitability of 2 engines varys with scale, for small scale, probably up to the PC12 - it is clear that a single engined solution is probably better, for 737 maybe 2 engines. In HELICOPTERS the justification of 2 engines is less strong (single drive mechanism, and ability to autorotate) and only works when the
hazard is great and at a
bigger scale. So, to carry 25 people over 200ft jungle canopy only - multi engine justified (2 crew also - to help with the complexity). To carry 1 observer over a few small trees sometimes - obviously SHOULD NOT be done by twin.
That's the problem, no logic out there any more: PA AGREE: "too many regulators and consultants are incapable of looking at objectively.
"
(and an industry that thinks it is clever to con the customer into thinking bigger and more complex is better)
PG - it is not surprising that the basics of lowering a lever (with appropriate attitude change) are lost especially amongst (confident) pilots of twins, feeling imune from reality, protected by sytems.
(not suggesting this happened here - but it wouldn't be surprising at all)