I agree that Forkner is alone in this
“… would have been acting as a member of a certification team”
Not necessarily so.
I'm not familiar with Boeing's organizational structure, nor how delegation works there, and I'm not much of a part 25 guy, but I do know that including a system like MCAS in a plane requires more than just flight design requirement findings, so more than just DER/AR pilots involved in presenting to/acting on behalf of the FAA. Design requirements other than those for flight would still require a finding of compliance by the FAA or a delegate, who would not be acting in the capacity of pilot. The first two requirements which comes to my mind, for example, (though there are certainly many others):
Sec. 25.1309
[Equipment, systems, and installations.]
..........
(c) Warning information must be provided to alert the crew to unsafe system operating conditions, and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated monitoring and warning means must be designed to minimize crew errors which could create additional hazards.
and,
Sec. 25.1322
[Flightcrew alerting.]
[(a) Flightcrew alerts must:
- (1) Provide the flightcrew with the information needed to:
- (i) Identify non-normal operation or airplane system conditions, and
(ii) Determine the appropriate actions, if any.
(2) Be readily and easily detectable and intelligible by the flightcrew under all foreseeable operating conditions, including conditions where multiple alerts are provided.
(3) Be removed when the alerting condition no longer exists.
Someone had to make a finding for those too, and it would not have been a person acting in the capacity of test pilot.
I have no opinion about pilot Forkner's role in certification of the MAX, but I believe that a failing would not have been his alone...