The important thing to notice is that todays total number of accidents (per number of flights or flying hours -- whatever you choose) is significantly (i.e. few times!) less than just the accidents caused by pilot errors those 30-40 years ago. That means than (so) many pilot errors went away. It's either because pilots are so much better today (which is rather hard to belive) or their errors either get corrected or are unable to happen. IOW: those protections do work. Of course CRM progress has helped as well, but all those protections, GPWSes, TCASes, FDs, etc. are primary factors.
That's a guess, and nothing more.
It's a fact that flight safety has improved. Why it has improved in terms of specific interventions is a different question. One of the problems with comments like yours is that it ignores the role of luck in the equation and attributes all the statistical improvements to mankind.
Some people in the airline industry often think that they are the only ones dealing with issues surrounding extremely unlikely events. They are not. Lotteries are another field where this discussion rears its heard all the time. There is a nice non-academic article that talks about this issue
here. I especially like the article because it breaks down the thinking of the two different camps nicely. One camp is willing to put it down to luck. The other camp “When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.”
The question "Did she cheat?" is no different than the question "Who is to blame for the crash of AF447?" My response is that she has the money; you don't. AF447 crashed. If you are going to take that money away from her the burden of proof is on you to prove that that she cheated. If you are going to argue that CRM improved safety,
prove it. If you are going to argue that bad CRM was to blame for AF448,
prove it. You can't. All you can say is something along the lines "it's possible that she won fairly but it's more probable that she cheated." That's why the findings in an accident report are based upon the probable cause of the accident, not the definitive fact. I await the day, however, when the NTSB or CAA or BEA finds the probable cause of an accident to be "bad luck".