“What these folks did is inexcusable. …”
The danger in this line of thought – closing the event by allocating blame, fault, error, etc, is that it fails to seek a deeper understanding of the behaviour and thus misses an opportunity to learn, perhaps enabling avoidance of a future incident.
Continuing the investigation beyond error does not imply unaccountability; we are always accountable for our actions, but actions are more often shaped by the circumstances of the operation including training, experience, and guidelines.
Rules or SOPs do not create safety – people do; how do you specify not to land at the wrong airport, or only land at the intended airport? In many instances the SOP rote is eroding the human ability to be flexible, and to adapt to changing situations and increasing pressures in operation.
Cut the guys some slack; consider how pilots with great regularity manage to land at the intended airport; how do they do that, how do you differentiate between what is intended when it is the correct airport, or intended at the wrong airport?
What is good judgement – or conversely bad judgement; only the outcome might tell. If only we could see the outcome before taking action.