After several years of posting and reading posts here at PPrune, I have an observation to make regarding accident discussions.
When contributing factors to an accident like this one, includes both a training problem (or a pilot performance problem), and a potential aircraft design problem, both factors are legitimate contributing causes. In this accident the NTSB found that both training AND an aircraft design anomaly contributed to this accident, and it's their job to determine if multiple contributing causes exist.
I've noticed over the years that a number of pilots posting here seem to lean toward the training human performance causes, while tending to lean away from a potential design issue. In some ways this is understandable, given that training is commonly used to overcome a potential design problem, and training is the ONLY thing a pilot can do to prevent the next accident, since making an aircraft's design better is completely outside the control of nearly every pilot.
Still, my observation is that the constant back and forth of arguing whether it's "training" or it's "design" is not very productive. Gentleman, learning from an accident is NOT whether the fault was training OR design, but rather that real understanding comes from knowing that BOTH were contributing causes to this accident, and BOTH topics are worthy of full and complete discussion. Each person may focus on one issue or the other, but one issue does NOT cancel out the other.
OK I'm done now, thanks for listening.
