DaveReidUK
The report did point to areas of the inspection process which could be improved, specifically areas which were implicated (if not formally found as a factual matter) to have led to the failed blade flaw(s) going unaddressed - is that not correct?
If that is correct, then is it the case that only formal Safety Recommendations can be predicates for re-examination and improvement of processes?
I'm not being formalistic - I'm not relying on the prior post not referring to "Safety Recommendations". Instead, having identified aspects of the inspection process overall which appeared directly involved in the problem blade continuing in service to failure, is that not a sufficient predicate to ask how to close those gaps? or at least to start to address it?