And this warning was labeled as "desirable" by Airbus. Not mandatory.
P.S.: Is it true the envolved Airliner and Aircraft maker participate in the investigation, but Congressmen, by ICAO rules, can't. ?
Can't it make investigations suscetible to vested corporate interests ?
First off manufacturers do not make regulatory rules regarding the (re)fitting of parts or procedures. They are recommendations only and are submitted to the regulatory authorities for their juristiction. Thus unless mandated by the authorities the implementation of these recommendations are decided by the user. The manufacturer should of course provide the usefulness and reason for the recommendation. I'm not aware what the specifics are in this case.
Second, I'm quite wary of questions that presuppose the answer (lawyer type tricks0 like
is it true?
As an example of who participates in an investigation, a formal investigating body and any qualified experts invited by such fomal investigating body(s). in addition, the FAA in the US has the right to participate at any time even though they are not oart of the formal investigating organization.
Yes the manufacturers do have a vested interest and that is under their certification they must provide to the regulatory body (not necsarily the investigating body) timely corrective actions, warnings etc, to prevent another crash Good one for AB who jumped on this without obfuscation within the first days.