Originally Posted by
lomapaseo
I would be concerned if the NTSB would enter into any kind of assessment regarding the adequacy of a regulatory process (e.g. reviewing "integity", and "effectiveness" ) as that is entirely delegated to the regulator body. However the burden of an impartial investigations and recommendations may simply point out the failure circumstances against any standards in the regulation as written.
On the contrary, surely. The reason that an 'annex 13' investigation body should be entirely independent (of everyone and everything else) is precisely because it should be able to question any part of the system. Using your argument, there should be no assessment of the piloting process because that is delegated to the pilot in command, or of the maintenance process because responsibility for signing off the aircraft as fit to fly is delegated to the maintenance organisation, and so on).
Is there any reason that you believe that the FAA is, in some way infallible? Indeed, there are plenty of examples of accidents where regulatory oversight is identified as poor, either before or after the investigation. In some ways it surprises me that regulatory agencies are relatively rarely the focus of recommendations resulting from accident investigations.
Having worked in a regulatory agency, it was rather sobering on occasions to see how little knowledge or understanding that the regulator actually had of the organisations which it was supposed to oversee. And that was before any arguments that regulatory staff could never have cutting-edge industry competence (only the people at the sharp end, those developing new technologies could be expected to fully understand such things) and so regulators would only study and assess the adequacy of safety cases produced by manufacturers etc.(which would always be honest and complete, of course). Rather interestingly as I sit here writing this, I can't help thinking about a news story running on the BBC at the moment - albeit a different industry and well outside FAA jurisdiction - which might open some eyes to the way in which regulation can work -
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46318445.
The annex 13 type of investigation is not perfect, but it's better than many of the alternatives that some might prefer - and long may the NTSB look at the effectiveness of the FAA (and all of the local parallels as they apply), just as they look at any other part of the aviation system. That's the only way that the enviable safety performance that we see in the aviation industry will be maintained and improved.