You use two recent examples of accident investigation to stereotype an airline process/procedure that has been effective for the majority of the recent century?

I've been on multiple Safety Investigation/Accident Investigation Board's in the Air Force; one accident involving a fatality. If the culmination of our Board's findings resulted in classifying accidents and the process of seniority as you have, I guarantee you the president of our investigation would've been fired by the General he was briefing.

You attack the seniority progression of the airlines, with weak arguments about how it has resulted in two recent accidents. Don't you think it's slightly a small scope of material? And then offer the idea that the Corporate world does it better through the "merit" system. I would offer the "merit" system (a.k.a. a$$kissing), is even more dangerous than the process we have now. I know for a fact that the corporate environments I've witnessed, and those that have disregarded their own integrity to a$$kiss the boss were lesser individuals, and therefore less competent to be an effective leader (e.g. PIC) than someone whose had a "bad day or two" in the simulator.

Again, referring to the SIB/AIB's. Anyone can have a bad day, on any given day. I guarantee you will too! The fact that it doesn't result in an investigable accident, doesn't mean that you are so much superior to someone else with your piloting prowess, it means that the process in place now, WORKS and the statistics (i.e. your material to lambast the system) will remain limited, at best.

Finally, quit while you're ahead with the classification of a system that has too many variables and myriad more reasons why it's better than what the corporate world uses, OR go back to being a cubicle engineer.

GJ