Is this not where a Safety Case should have offered that protection? Is this not where the absence of a Safety Case in this tragedy was a major contributory cause?
Yes!
I sometimes wonder if I am reading the same report as some, or misinterpreting it. As I read it (but feel free to correct me) the techies followed the AP, leaving 1.5 threads exposed and with the shackle able to move freely. They were not blameworthy in any way.
In reality the AP and the MB tech pubs they were drawn from were wrong and had been for decades. Not only would 1.5 threads be 'grossly overtightened' and the 'shackle check' would not actual ensure a release at low ejection speed. Moreover, the small variance in bolt length would vary the torque from shackle to shackle.
The other thing I am missing is why the forensic tear-down of the seats by MB post-usage did not notice the witness marks on the shackle - they do still return the seats after live-use for such checks and reports don't they? Or have we 'saved' money by not bothering post-ejection?
Then again, without a Safety Case just what effect would these reports actually have….