Originally Posted by
Old Age Pilot
I feel the same. The narrative of the NTSB is "we cannot answer any speculative questions, we can only deal with known facts - and we know nothing at this stage", yet there is this apparent snipe at the FAA for "failing to implement" their recommendations intended to avoid a specific cause of accident. They are indirectly suggesting the cause before they've even begun the investigation.
I am speculating that the NTSB is using the opportunity which this high-profile case provides to push their old TAWS and "FDR/CVR for light commercial aircraft" recommendations in the hopes that they may get political traction this time when they hadn't before. From their perspective, even if this wasnt a situation where TAWS would have helped, situations where it will are sure to arise again. And understanding more clearly how light aircraft accidents occur ought to help save lives in the long run, too, that is the NTSB's reason to exist. I don't believe this push on the old recommendations expresses any opinion on this particular accident.
P.S.: From the NtSB's "Most Wanted" list: "
Part 135 operators must implement safety management systems that include a flight data monitoring program," while this doesn't require a FDR per se, but rather a device where the data can be more easily downloaded from, the collected data is commonly copied off theFDR interface. This means that adding a FDR to a cockpit that doesn't have one (yet) might be a crucial step towards introducing that kind of safety management system.