The Dep't of Transportation / FAA advisory panel's report appears certain to complicate matters in several ways. To start, the pub, r guy, will have one more seat vacant here too.
While it seems pretty evident that the report was a result of a studied and determined effort to protect the status quo especially regarding delegation in a broad sense, there are too many other wheels in motion, for it really to be effective. Just as an example when I (SLF + att'y) conclude my weekend reading will I have seen, let alone found logical satisfaction with, this panel's rebuttal of the JATR?
Quickly to note the panel is made up (as far as I can tell) of heavy worthies. Usually it's worth noting a gap between "expertise" - which typically is for sale - and "authoritativeness" - which is earned most often the old-school way. But in this instance what matters is the full set of substantive issues, and questions, not anyone's career history to date.
One reported assertion by the panel is that policies were adhered to, that things were done appropriately and effectively. But compliance with the status quo process hardly warrants approval - if the current system is flawed, let alone deeply so. I'll not insult the dignity of the families by commenting on "appropriate" or "effective".
A second reported assertion is that certification as a new type wouldn't have improved the overall safety of the airplane. I'm going to plead dumbfoundedness on this....new type, but no bare airframe testing without MCAS? No revealing its inclusion to pilots, no simulator training? One AoA sensor only? I must be missing something (again, just SLF + att'y). At the very least, this is a stark counter-factual -- the panel is a roster of heavies but they don't have magic portals for seeing into what "would have happened" either.
Third and almost last, regarding the scheme of delegating areas of the certification process, for now my response is, "but of course the status quo will counter-attack, and this is part of that." Some other worthies on Capitol Hill are obviously angling to re-reconfigure the delegation scheme, and those efforts now have one more obstacle.
Last, and most tentative until back in the pub, I've reached the conclusion that the court got it wrong in the case brought by British Caledonian when Langhorne Bond pulled the certificate of the DC-10 after the crash in Chicago, 25 May 1979. There's a lot of lip service paid to the Chicago Convention of 1944 with regard to reciprocal acceptance of certification, and obviously after 737 Max this scheme too will need a review. (At the time the Ten was grounded the real accident causal analysis was not yet known, but the court ruled the U.S. had acted in violation of law, based on what one could call "legal-paperwork-technicalities." Which are still operative....for now.)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 21st Jan 2020 at 22:39.