That certainly is a point of view, and well taken. The problem with it is that it reeks of the type of rhetoric the ambulance chaser is accused of using.
pot/kettle
Hindsight and the accusation of the use thereof cuts both ways. This accident makes painfully clear some things no one wants to look at, least of all a partisan.
As a flyer, I take note of the record. With upwards of three dozen UAS events, each handled in an ad hoc manner, the replacement of the Probes should have been an emergency AD, imo. One would hope that those in charge would have seen it that way after the first dozen or so events.
This alone frames the problem well. It also makes clear the approach used by the Line, the Manufacturer, and the Regulator: Roll with the data, modify procedures, and alert the crews.
Mixing bile with resentment does not produce a clear product.
Lawyers do what they do, and in doing so, present a kind of eeyew predictability that has an aroma of integrity.
It is such a shame that while the three principals present as having integrity, they do not, and seemingly, they have their cheering section as well.
The worst of this crowd is the supposed "independent" Investigator/Regulator. It is to laugh out loud, this hypocrisy.
Hindsight should destroy this practice; can there be agreement?