Yeah I read that but was more after technical information on why this crash was different from the Turkish one. Same aircraft type, ended up in the same place relative to the runway, both low energy etc.
Let's cut to the chase in this accident. The aeroplane had a set of throttles that worked if you pushed them. It had a control wheel and two rudder/brake pedals. It had three artificial horizons, three altimeters and three ASI's. And it had two windscreen wipers that don't clear the windscreens in heavy rain. But presumably it had rain repellant.
Short final, runs into blinding rain (happens on busy freeways too) and loses sight of the runway. Happens every minute somewhere in the world. Splurges into the sea for some reason. Should have been a straight forward go-around. Isn't that what instrument ratings are all about?
A low altitude go-around isn't all that complicated when you have those basic controls and instruments
if you know what you are doing. . It certainly shouldn't be; although TOGA buttons and other automatic goodies like flight directors can often makes things far more complicated than is really needed.
On the face of it, and at the risk of not knowing yet what really happened between the two pilots in the Lion Air accident, it seems to me that current simulator training syllabae needs to go back to the basics of learning to crawl before you can walk. Re-currency cyclic training in the simulator needs to be taken back to pure and simple basic instrument flying on raw data and no automatics until the pilot is certified competent in those skills. And that must include low altitude go-arounds as a surprise factor.
Only then should practice at use of the automatics and their application to sophisticated instrument approaches and their go-around procedures be made. It seems to me that ethnic cultural mores and and the demonstrated absence of pure instrument flying skills, make dangerous bedfellows.