It's pretty clear they're laying out that this is pilot error, unlike the article's intent to blame parties other than the pilot. The poster is trying to correct that, from an obvious place of knowledge and experience most of us do not have, and isn't being rude about it either.

It's important to understand why things happen in order to prevent them, and to counter the narrative of the opinionated article. And if we should wait for the NTSB report, then so should the article.

> Wait for the NTSB report before replying, essentially "get gud"

The preliminary NTSB report points toward “get gud”. If you request a visual approach and then fly into a mountain getting “gud” will be at top of the list.

Your post is overly critical, dismissive and rude.

What do you expect might change between the preliminary and the final report?

Pilots complaining about automation: several

Pilots unable to fly with all the bells and whistles and getting their ass handed to them when anything falls out of the ordinary: too many

I agree with your perspective re: the tone of the OP. But they hold a perspective that we should also give credence towards.

Your main point is the most valid - wait for the final report. But you should be saying the same to the article as written.

Prelim report: https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

Out of my scope to infer.

Maybe you are just aren't aware that military GPS jamming is extremely routine around the US. It affects airplanes more than cars because the curvature of the earth can not help you and at typical flight altitudes you have easy line of sight to the jammer.