Al Shuff, I reiterate that my approach is not to defend the crew, but an attempt to understand and learn from the circumstances and behaviours of everyone involved.
I really do agree with your concerns and frustration around runway overruns; the industry still struggles with the problems associated with these. Baulked landings are a final mitigation; ops/trng must have keen awareness of this and promote skills of decision making and flying. However, there are other mitigating activities, perhaps less sensitive to time pressured human decisions on the runway, which arise from preceding circumstances, and where many are organisational aspects that contribute to the difficulties in changing a course of action.
Attitude; again I agree, but are we in charge of our attitude – are there factors which influence awareness and decision making which we might not be fully aware of.
If we consider the circumstances and events completely independently of the outcome, would the decisions and activities still be open to criticism.
How many of the contributing factors appear in every day operations, are tolerated, excused, not checked/debriefed; would this ‘normal’ so-called ‘safe-attitude’ lead to an ‘unsafe-attitude’ as might be identified in this accident? I would argue that there are the same, thus solutions must start with our attitude to every day ‘normal’ operations, activities, objectives, regulations, procedures, and as has been stressed, checking and correcting errant activity.
An important aspect of this unfortunate event is that provides an opportunity to learn. What factors could have prevented it, what combination of factors led to it; there may be very little difference between these, again only our attitude might differentiate between them.