Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
the "administrative" items with regard to the JOEB and FSB outputs are very relevant and potentially quite significant for purposes of restoring the assurance of safety of the airplane.
FYI: While they are relevant, neither the JOEB or FSB carry weight legally to unground the MAX. Both are policy processes (admin) and not regulatory processes (AD). If future changes are needed to the certification regulations, IG issues, etc. in general then those changes will get their own NPRMs. Same as in your DC-10 and 787 examples as the APA/NPRM process has been around since the 1940s. But trying to tie in the JOEB/FSB with the Airworthiness Directive NPRM process is not possible as they follow separate and distinct paths. That doesn't mean the FAA rule-making committee who drafts the MAX NPRM will exclude any finding from any external boards rather the opposite. There is usually a robust, public, discussion during the NPRM process especially with a high-profile subject matter like the MAX. And I have a feeling this NPRM process will be quite the discussion.