Forgive me if I made any impression otherwise -- I am not saying those specific pilots were inexperienced. (I mentioned the US solely because I am familiar with their safety record, not because I don't think other high-income nations don't also have good pilots)

I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Humans are good at fixing, mitigating, and recognizing mechanical issues. Other planes in the past have had mechanical issues and later returned to service with a good safety record. Human error is really what you should be worried about, both statistically, and in terms of mitigation difficulty.

>I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason.

Sure, but the issue with the 737 MAX in particular is that the aircraft is unsafe from a design perspective, so I find your arguments that US aircrews are less likely to make a mistake to be both nonsensical and irrelevant (from a 737 MAX perspective).

The 737 MAX is flawed in a way that was not only concealed from the operators, but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit".

Your faith in the MAX 8 flown by US operators is unfounded.

> but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit".

This is negated by the fact that the pilots on the flight before the Indonesian crash were able to save their aircraft because they recognized the symptoms of runaway trim quickly.

https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-ma...

The DC10 also had design flaws. Mitigations were implemented and it returned to service with a safety record similar to its peers. Both planes had an engineering problem, both can be solved by engineering a solution.

I don't understand. If the engineering problems around MCAS are solved, then why would it matter if the crews are American (and thus "know their shit")?

Because you still need a good pilot to fly the plane, even if it was engineered perfectly.

They don't need to be American, I merely listed it as an example of a place where people who fly planes can be reasonably expected to have a high level of competency. (In contrast to situations like PIA 8303)

Most engineering problems also include elements of human interaction -- once again, the DC10 cargo door issue is a good example. One would expect that even if MCAS is re-engineered to work correctly, a pilot would still need to understand the operation of the system. Part of the problem is that Boeing tried to sell it as if it was of little to no importance to understand.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all, nor do I really understand what point you're trying to make.