For those suggesting that a few of us from the industry could influence change by joining forces and talking to the regulators, I have bad news for you. In the country that I live and fly in the regulator is a major part of the problem, along with totally unqualified Provincial employees who have been able to hijack the training standards and flight training industry, promoting the dumbing down of training and causing huge monetary costs to the industry
Rest assured it's not just your part of the world. Many posters on this thread have been quick to criticise 'Asian' regulators but the principle regulators, FAA, EASA, Transport of Canada etc who should be leading by example are all guilty of dragging the industry down with ever increasing bureaucratic nonsense that adds no training value but does add significant cost. Costs that have to be recovered somewhere.
In our case we spend MORE time and MORE effort satisfying the regulatory requirements on CMS and SMS processes and procedures than we do on the OM and TM and the regulator spend more time auditing the CMS, SMS and associated Compliance Matrix than he does auditing the OM and TM.
It is somewhat ironic that today when the training tools have never been so good, the trainers (generally) so well trained that we seem to be having so many issues.
This particular accident may well highlight a regulatory issue with the manufacturers EASA approved delta course which (for marketing and/or cost reasons?) is quite limited with only 1 X 4 hour FFS session consisting of Severe Icing, Stall, EFATO, Go Arounds, both single and both engines exercises with 3 other days on low level training tools.
The FAA is even worse with NO regulatory requirement for ANY training to move from any 'Classic' ATR to the -600 and viva versa!!
What hope is there for the minor regulators that tend to follow (look up to) the majors?
So yes, I would concur that the regulator is a major part of the problem.