.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.
This conclusion is typical of hindsight bias; humans tend to focus on the the last action or person involved in the event, thus constructing a cause based on the outcome.
Such thoughts, and being unable to remember, suggests that nothing was learnt from this incident, nothing that would apply to you ('you' in this sense is not personal, but generic; 'you' as individuals, operators, trainers, regulators, and manufacturers); i.e. it wouldn't happen to me.
Learning requires deeper thought about events. It's easy to relate outcome by looking back, instead we should try to look forward from the crew's point of view at the time and consider all that preceded the accident.
One problem is that we depended too much on official reports, which generally focus on a causal route based on 'factual' evidence. This more often hinders wider learning as the possibilities which might help avoid other accidents are not considered because they were not proven in the accident, but they may have influenced the outcome ... we don't know, but it's worth the thought.
Thus for SF 777 we could consider the influence of ATC, the approach procedure, the automation design, operator training and procedural guidance, if the crew knew about the flight system weakness, or were aware of it in this event. The latter could argue for more system implementation training and use of automation - practice in daily operations.
Which of the above could apply to you; this would be a more useful crew room discussion than that assuming an outcome, blame the human, poor manual flying, etc.