Where does this idea originate?

Thanks for that link. Much more informative and substantive analysis than a lot of what has been posted here in FT much less in the mainstream media.

An important note. The reality is that no flight crew is perfect, whether they have 100 hours or 20,000 hours. The aircraft shows obvious shortcomings in its design, and is clearly a rush job by Boeing in order to keep pace with the A320NEO (which albeit is also a bit of a disappointment when it comes to innovation). The 737 should have been laid to rest decades ago and the company should have focused on designing a new, modern aircraft rather than simply trying to keep up with its competitor. Even a next gen 757 would have been a far better option than a fourth generation of the tired 737.

I'm not sure that it's ever that simple. If you look back to the seminal UA 173 crash, the first instinct was "incompetent pilot," and that may still be what many people think. But what really emerged was a whole suite of issues that resulted in crew resource management becoming a thing and transforming training programmes across the globe. Going further back, pilots in the B-17's lifting gear instead of flaps - also on the surface an indication of incompetence, but ultimately resolved by changing the designs of the switches, resulting in an incredible improvement in pilot skill....

Not trying to opine one way or another on this specific incident, just saying that it's very easy for us to say that the pilot should and could have done certain things. That's always true, but the explanation isn't always incompetence.

"What people don’t get about why planes crash"
 

Interesting article today:

"A former accident investigator explains."
https://www.vox.com/first-person/201...ax-crash-plane


"THE WAY PILOTS INTERACT WITH TECHNOLOGY INTENDED TO PREVENT ERRORS CAN OFTEN CONTRIBUTE TO ACCIDENTS IN UNEXPECTED WAYS"
'

+ 1 for the link.

Sorry, article is so long I had to read it in two sittings (ADD is not fun :( )

And then forgot to come and thank for the link :blush: (ya, there is that ADD again)

Here is another important quite from the Vox article.

computer aided flight systems are a necessity in modern aircraft. So are basic flying skills, and too many pilots fail to practice those skills.

OMG, some facts slipped into a Vox article? How'd they let that happen?!? :p

I have seen that phenomenon happen repeatedly over my career -- the more we automate, the more basic skills erode. That comes even more into play as less and less experience is expected to occupy positions of responsibility. One highlight of this tragedy ... I and others now know that European as well as Asian and African airlines allow FOs with relatively low levels of experience. One extremely experienced pilot mentoring a relatively junior one makes great sense when everything is benign but can go tragic quickly when things start to go wrong.

Is that true though? I was reading a post on another forum that ADD requires the captain to fly in an out of the airport due to it's hot and high nature. IIRC, while he was in his 20's, the ET captain had about 8000 hours.

Now lets not let facts get in the way of a perfectly good belief that Boeing can do no wrong, and its all the fault of these folks in the 3rd world....:rolleyes:

Not completely. I believe the FO had 360 hours of flight experience. According to the analysis linked by LarryJ, the captain had significant experience but was busy trying to fly the plane. In the meantime, the FO committed several errors which compounded the situation. The facts remain that the 737 is one of the most successful airframes in aviation history, computer assist tends to be a an overall positive for many things including aviation but computer control can be quite problematic, and tragedies like this will continue to spur emotional reactions.

Agreed.

The MAX is NOT a 737. @:-)