Just my 2c......
1. ATC did not cause this. I don't think anyone really said that.
2. In any incident investigation, it is appropriate to look at ATC actions.
3. It is possible that they were using the canarsie when an easier and better approach was available. It is not unreasonable to ask ATC to look at this aspect.
4. US/JFK are seriously unfriendly at times. Their clipped, harsh and ambiguous instructions are a problem. Maybe it works for them and local pilots. TBH, I don't have a problem with it.....however, I feel very uncomfortable having to ask for clarification on something.....often the response leaves me feeling stupid and red-faced. That lies at their feet and doesn't foster a comfortable and safe working environment. Give me India ATC anyday......at least they are friendly, even if I ask them to repeat 10 times.
5. In their defense, they don't go running to the authorities at the drop of a hat(unlike the Aussies).
6. Those that think the pilots should simply have looked out are over-simplifying. This could easily have happened to me. I know it would not have happened to many of the pilots here because you guys never screw up.
7. If they were not looking in the right place, there is a reason for that. Probably trying to make sure the fmc & fcu setting were correct, as that is what is monitored and will land you in doo doo, not what you are looking at.
8. Note that the response from the company so far has been to emphasize SOP and that autoflight settings are being monitored. Further emphasis on consequences for SOP deviance, in the interest of flight safety and brand reputation. Make of this what you will.....I know what my take away is(hint : it's not that I can expect further training.......)