Talking to people on a website is only so good, I live with a pilot and talk to them every day. They fly a plane that requires more skill and effort to fly than a 737. The problem with talking to a lot of 737 pilots is that many of them are at companies where that’s all they have and where the 737 is the only jet they’ve flown other than maybe the CRJunk. These people will usually think the 737 is fine because they don’t know any better. Some of them are also American nationalists (unfortunate to have to say that but it’s true). I have also have known people who have flown thousands of hours in the 737. What you say here doesn’t sound like what anyone with more than just 100 hours in a Cessna would say because someone with more knowledge in the industry and the job would not obviously lack so much knowledge and make so many factual missteps as you do as others have pointed out. Evidently you cherry-pick who you listen to on here only to the ones that confirm your narrative because many of the pilots on here, if not either do not even bother with this thread or do not agree with you. Again outside of this website the general consensus I have heard is overwhelmingly anti-MAX.
You failed to answer or come up with a logical rebuttal to anything I’ve said here. Half if not most of the crashes in the last 20 years weren’t because of stall recovery skills because like real airline pilots have said here and have told me personally you don’t EVER want to be in a position where you have to stall recover transport category aircraft because no matter your skills it usually doesn’t end well. Explain how two instructors here at a flying school where I lived crashed a plane trying to recover from a stall. Was it training? I should hope not as one was a career airline pilot at a very reputable company and the other was military. In large aircraft you train for stall avoidance. Nevertheless, many of the crashes in the past 20 years have been other issues such as mechanical or fatigue or other human factors that show the unavoidable flaws that may appear to the untrained eye as just lack of training. Sure there are things that can be improved but there always will be. If you want to be right, you should argue that pilots should be replaced by computers because that’s where your argument really could be right.
I don’t believe anyone needs nor should have to put up with getting experience on a jet without auto throttle, it’s more challenging than a prop. Besides the point, I was challenging you on the notion of some form of automation being basically the only reason air travel has become safer.
Now don’t compare MCAS to an autopilot turning a plane, that is another fallacy, this time faulty analogy. MCAS is far more sinister than that.
As for the AHRS failure, let’s take a plane that would have AHRS rather than a proper IRS or ADIRS. Such planes would not have an ISFD first off. Now to take the words of not me but an actual airline pilot that has been through hours upon hours of training, it’s not as easy as you say. By the time you figure out what’s going on in IMC you are very likely in a spiral dive or another dangerous situation. Again, not my thoughts or words there, but thoughts and words of someone qualified on the matter.
I do have to point out that you are as per usual backpedaling here. You said before that automation has carried aviation safety to where it is today. Now you admit that it’s only part of it when you can’t provide proof of your original position. I still argue it isn’t even half. There is so much risk attributed with a given flight every day. Not much of it is mitigated by just the automation. The safeguards of the automation don’t usually even get used. Having said that, when automation fails to the biblical proportions MCAS has, a crew should not be expected or required to sort it out. It’s just too much for two humans to deal with as evident with the recent sun sessions where most failed to get the procedures right. There’s training and then there’s training-proof fatally flawed engineering.
As a professional pilot, I'm genuinely curious about some of the points you make in your argument here.
What kind of airplane does your roommate fly that you feel "requires more skill and effort" than a 737? I've flown several different types over the years, and generally most transport airplanes are pretty close in workload, and "skill required" if you can quantify that beyond passing a type check.
There are plenty of us who have flown many other transport jets, besides the 737, that still believe the 737 is a good airplane. I've even flown the CL65 "CRJunk" as you say. Granted, I've only flown the -700, but it's a wonderful airplane. I hear the -200 isn't so nice, however.
You are correct, that we don't ever want to be in a position where we actually stall a transport airplane, but history has proven that's not a real possibility. Thats why we are all doing EET, or Enhanced Envelope training now.
Your comment about experience in aircraft without auto throttles is just asinine. There have been thousands of jets flying without auto throttles for decades, it's perfectly safe, and experience on such a type is a great foundation. Flying jets is the easiest thing I've done in my career. Don't kid yourself, moist complex propellor driven airplanes are much harder to fly than a modern jet. The props, and gearboxes add a level of complexity, and many more possible failures.
Every transport airplane has a standby attitude indicator, it may not be called an ISFD, but it's there. And if a trained crew can't keep the wings level using the standby instruments, they need to look for another line of work.