Credibility and the unbelievable
It's a safe bet that no serious participant or observer quarrels over the imperative for FAA's anticipated decisions to lift its grounding order to have strong, consistent credibility with EASA and everywhere else in the regulatory and certification world. Though, isn't the path from where things stand now, to a credible - sufficiently credible - outcome ill-defined at present? It doesn't appear that either FAA or Boeing really have a valid game-plan. For FAA, with the various inquiries still pending, with JATR one-and-done, with Congressional committees and legislative proposals breathing down its neck, being able to draw the line from the present point A to a point B of real credibility seems quite not to be the case. And as for Boeing and getting to credibility, well.
Maybe the looming disclosures from the Flyers' Rights FOIA lawsuit against FAA will wreak yet further havoc. I seriously doubt it will restore much credibility, on the other hand (for FAA and Boeing, that is - FR is doing a great public service here).
A suggestion......what *should have* the total interactions between Boeing and FAA regarding the Max have covered? - and "all included"? All the systems, flight characteristics, development or testing simulator results, everything.
How can a lifting of the grounding possibly make sense, and how could it hold real credibility, unless what should have been communicated, and what should have been done, in the place first, have been identified? It's simplistically comparable to realizing you're lost in the forest, no app and no map - don't you want to retrace your steps before starting out again?
WillowRun 6-3