phil gollin
The report is hardly "comprehensive in scope" as it does not even begin to try to cover representative tests of the presumed actual fuel/water mixture in the plane at the time of the accident.
Likewise their "analysis" is non-existent as they totally dodge this issue.
The report screams out both a lack of rigourous testing and avoidance of the huge cost that would be involved in both undertaking such research and then applying it to ALL airframe and engine combinations.
Releasing a report with such glaring gaps is plain weird.
P
Your last statement desrves a rebuttal
It's not the job of the investigating agency to research and develop all possible contributors in future accidents. It is generally considered that an investigation report has done a fair job if its recommendations are timely and sound enough to make it unlikley that the accident will be repeated before the designer-regulator has addressed the issues.
Sometimes it's important to be aware of the fine line between design intent, regulation and after-the-fact discovery.
Lessons Learned