Everyone's target should be never to make a mistake, rather than just to make as few as possible. It may be almost unachievable, but striving for it will minimise mistakes
old,not bold, well said. Years ago an ICAO spokesman released the years safety figures and in one parameter there had been zero events. A reporter made the comment, "now that you've reached the holy grail I guess you will be cracking the champagne". The reply was, "no, we consider it a statistical aberration that we don't expect to ever see repeated again".
Further explanation of what happened in the picture you posted could be useful and more on topic
Sorry, I don't know the circumstances and background. I was a spotty callow non flying youth at the time and participated in getting her back on her wheels.
A logical reasoning frequently includes that the person is incompetent to fly which appears to be the case here
That is an assessment that does no one any good. Chuck Yeager could have been tarred by that brush by the likes of you when he crashed the NF-104. A case where his instrument flying skills were not up to the task in hand. Are you going to call him an incompetent? Bob Hoover crashed an Aero Commander after refuelling with jet fuel instead of the proper avgas. Incompetent? He also scraped the belly of an Aero Commander on the runway during a fly past at an airshow. Incompetent? The worlds most experienced 747 pilot came very nearly to landing one gear up. Incompetent? (He did write a very good article on how it came about).
Incident/accident investigation would be an easy task if one were to adopt the simplistic argument that the pilot was incompetent.
When a mistake is made, we should focus on why it was made, because when we know that we know how to stop it happening again, rather than just shouting at the person who made the mistake. But this (Human Factors oriented) approach should never be allowed to be interpreted as meaning that a mistake is forgiveable
It's not a case of forgiving a mistake as you say, it's gaining an understanding of why the individual failed in a particular instance. The safety organisations then broadcast the details so as to educate we masses. Trouble is the number of ways in which folks can be caught out are innumerable.
In the end, the most important thing is preventing a situation like this from happening again
An impossible task, particularly, as in this case, there is no definitive understanding of the precipitating cause. Loss of control, but why?
There are a number of sayings that are truisms. You get a licence, or a checkout in a new aircraft, and that is the point at which you begin to learn. The first in real world flying experience (filling the bag of experience while hopefully not emptying the bag of luck), and the latter in learning the foibles and ins and outs of a new airframe. You don't come to the task of using the privileges granted by a licence, or flying a new type, with everything you need to know really squared away. You are merely deemed to be safe enough to embark on the journey of filling the bag of experience. Even with the accumulation of experience you are subject to Human Factors, and no one is immune. It's not an excuse, but the reality, and is why the human failing is the prime initiator of incidents/accidents. You may aim for the stars, and it's an extremely admirable ambition to be the best, but don't for one minute think that you are incapable of stumbling.
No person has an all encompassing knowledge of the traps that can befall an individual, all accidents are a rehash of one that has gone before. There is not an aviator who has not had a "I learnt about flying from that" type of incident, where but for the grace of God they didn't become a statistic of one sort or another. That's if they are honest with themselves.