Originally Posted by
yoko1
You are falling into the cognitive trap of believing that this must be an either/or proposition. Problems with design and problems with training are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the final reports are going to have a long list of primary and contributory causes. It would be quite a shame to fix just one of them.
Originally Posted by
Alchad 
Yoko, in a nutshell, additional time and energy expenditure is really superfluous. There are two opposite views which are diametrically opposed. Simply put, one view, which I think you subscribe to, is that inadequately trained pilots were to blame for the accidents. The other is that Boeing built a plane with design flaws as a result of a desire to regain a commercial advantage they were in danger of losing.
Alchad
Original post in reverse order, sorry can't figure how to reverse.
Yoko1, I know I'm labouring the point, but my view is concerned simply with the two accidents and the deaths of 300+ souls, not the now revealed general lack of training resulting in the latest FAA announcement. Had Boeing succeeded in simply attaching more efficient engines on the 737 air frame without affecting the rest of the aerodynamic design they would still be alive. The fact that they couldn't do it without additional design changes which - put charitably - in hindsight were not proof tested as rigorously as they should have been, then resulted in the pilots of planes being exposed to a scenario which they couldn't handle. You can argue that had they been more experienced, had better training they might have coped. But I repeat had the design been engineered to the standards it should have been they would not have been put in the position in the first place.
Perhaps the one good thing to come out of this is that the point you and others have made about the level and adequacy of training is now being raised to the top of the agenda and who knows how many lives might be saved because of this in the future.
Alchad