However, my experience with bureaucracies tends to set off my "spidey sense" which tends to lead me to believe that at least some of the Board's recommendations are not logical, some, while logical, might be costly and not necessarily productive, and still others might be terribly costly and while perhaps may be nice to have in place IF the same situation were to arise again
I'm reminded of a particular NTSB recommendation on the Pinnacle RJ crash a couple of years ago:
For airplanes equipped with CF34-1 or CF34-3 engines, require manufacturers to perform high power, high altitude sudden engine shutdowns; determine the minimum airspeed required to maintain sufficient core rotation; and demonstrate that all methods of in-flight restart can be accomplished when this airspeed is maintained. (A-06-70)
It seems perferctly reasonable to require test pilots to reproduce the conditions which directly led to an accident in order to show that it won't happen... what's the definition of insanity again? repeating the same actions and expecting different results?