People aren't disagreeing on the proper procedures they should have taken - as we learn more about the accident we realize how many things they missed on ET302.
Some realize that - as we learn more about the accident - the Boeing instructions were not very clear, ambigious at best, or just poor at worst.
No one has proven that at least ET properly provided or trained there pilots with the information they needed to save the plane either and it's been reported they made almost no effort - how is that Boeing's fault?
It could be argued (heck, it's been going on for over 100 thread pages) that the Boeing instructions were not clear, and not suited for MCAS failures. Sure, there were instructions for runaway trim, but MCAS failure has different characteristics as what the 737 world has been trained for the last 40 years.
Lionair continued to use a bad system 22 times - how is that symbolic of good airmanship or training - how is that Boeing's fault?
Well, they had a lot of warnings and failures. They knew electric trimming worked for them. Why limit your controllability options when your having control issues? It did certainly not work for ET.
Yes in retrospect MCAS could have been more robust but it was not required to be so (assuming Boeing isn't lying which might be a stretch) and what basic level of airmanship should they be required to design too?
To the same level as 737 NG would be a good start, as the "poorly trianed (third world) pilot comunity" have no apparent issues with that.
Should the pilots only be required to press a big green button that says start and a red one that says stop and the plane should do the rest including account for any parts failures? Yes that would be nice but we are not there yet in terms of automation and probably won't be until we get robust AI and have well trained pilots in the cockpit to train the AI for a good ten years or so.
Nobody is asking for that. I don't understand why you would bring the discussion into such ridiculous extremes, when it is for everyone clearly not needed.
BTW, I do wonder how much AI (if at all) would be needed for autonomous flight to be more safe than human operated flights.
The only reason we are seeing the deficiencies in training is because the planes are so reliable and safe these days that they are never apparent.
And as 737NG, A320, A350, 787 etc safety numbers learns, that seems to be focussed on the MAX specifically. How is that not Boeing's fault?
However almost all the major tragedies in the world in the past 10-15 years have largely been a result of bad training and failure to respond properly to failures in critical systems.
It has been listed previously, none of the new designs or derivatives in this century have had fatal crashes. Not one. Only the MAX, and not just one, even two fatal accidents. And that in just two years.
Now I'm not saying, nor claiming, that there are no training issues. But putting so much emphasize on that as you do, is closing the eyes to the real issues wiht the MAX, IMHO.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"