There will always be well-springs at the margins, and they must be examined on their merits alone, always within the context of flight safety work.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
It is nevertheless disturbing that in the last four years there have been four fatal air carrier accidents due to loss-of-control by stalling otherwise-serviceable transport aircraft, adding to the dozen or so in less recent years. The Asiana accident is deeply troubling.
Which four are you referring to? As far as I can tell, Asiana did not stall as such, they allowed a low-and-slow situation to progress beyond a recoverable point. That said, I agree completely that this is troubling - but until the flight and CVR data is properly reviewed, I feel that significant commentary merely adds to the noise quotient.
[ EDIT:
What I find more troubling than the accidents themselves is a significant cross-section of the responses I've seen on here. For example, the number of self-identified pilots dismissing the ColganAir crash as down to the actions of an incompetent Captain, when all the report actually said was that he was of below-average ability (along with 50% of all the line pilots in the US). Likewise putting the AF447 PF's actions down to lack of handflying experience (which said posters implied they have in spades). Startle response is an aspect of human factors that hasn't even begun to be explored with any significant depth, and the apparent rush to sweep it under the carpet as an outgrowth of lack of ability is truly frightening to me.
As was the sudden rush to put the Asiana accident down to aspects of Korean culture based on anecdotal evidence that was anything up to a couple of decades old.
Surely until the facts are known and confirmed it would be far more fitting to adopt a "there but for the grace..." attitude, no?