Originally Posted by
alfaman
........ The pilot in this aircraft is reported as having approximately 3500 hours total time, approximately 30 hours on type. He wasn't inexperienced at flying; he was also reasonably experienced on this aircraft. The issue stems from ......
I guess the only amendment to your observation above is the use of the word "relevant" as a prefix to the word "experience". This not only influences the physical activity of flying in the conditions encountered, but also the overall attitude to the "management" of this flight as it progressed.
"Bad attitudes" are just as dangerous (or maybe more so???) as "bad flying skills"! Back in my time as an Instructor I have banned fully qualified and experienced (on paper) people undergoing an initial Club Check Flight from flying Club aircraft just based on their attitude - I just showed them the door (and rang ahead to the other Clubs on the field to warn them of what I had done!). The fact their flying was sometimes relatively poor was very much a secondary reason. You can train out poor flying skills with a bit of coaching - a poor attitude is far more difficult to correct!
It also looks very much like "experience" bred "complacency" here, something that commercial operations work hard to prevent, hence why regular check flights etc are so important. As you said further on in your post,
........ By ignoring them all ["them all" being defined earlier in your Post], every single chance of keeping this aircraft safe was missed. No system can ever protect against wilful disregard [there's the "attitude" bit] of the rules & regulations by those who know them but chose to ignore them. ......