I think fuel is an unnecessary diversion. The main topic here is the difference between what we think should gave happened and what actually did. Fuel might have been a participant in this incident but it was not. Their low fuel state was perceived as being beneficial because they believed they might be performing a flapless landing at MAN. The big issue is why, given the training and investment in this crew did it all go wrong? Will chopping these guys make the skies safer? Only if these two are the only rotten apples. But they are not. I think you'll find these two are not untypical. This was just an example and the next incident is there waiting to happen. When it does, the same usual suspects will hop up and shout (again) about poor flying and how people like this shouldn't be in the air. All the time ignoring the real underlying reasons that are responsible. The ones that live inside the totally fallible, but totally remarkable Mk 1 human being. Work on those issues and we start moving forwards.