What happens next?
@tdracer: I appreciate your reiteration of the relationship, in terms of authority, between the FAA and NTSB. And I regret if my prior post lacked clarity.
The point I was reaching for is: when a given investigatory authority in a single country reaches conclusions (whether in the form of just recommendations or any other form presently in use by the various investigatory authorities around the world), and those conclusions relate to a problem or a set of problems which cut across national boundaries and implicate major components of the worldwide civil aviation system as a whole, what is the mechanism, the forum (no irony intended), for progress on solutions? There isn't, in the realm of civil aviation accident investigation boards or agencies, any umbrella group, or something akin to a "court of appeals", so, where can the multi-national problem-solving take place? Even if ICAO SARPs and other programming were implicated in how the AF447 and this incident unfolded (and no one is claiming they were implicated, as far as I recall), there isn't such a process in place at the Organization, as far as I know.
What I am trying to stir up, in terms of discussion, is the idea that in order to attack and redress problems like low-hours aviators who may be too reliant on automation generally, or too unfamiliar with recognition of imminent stall and recovery from stall, or the problem of airline management too cheapskate to allow for hand-flying to be experienced more extensively, the first action seems to be to create a forum (again, no irony intended) where the major constituents of, and participants in, what I will dare to call "the safety community" can conduct a broader problem-solving process than the country-by-country process as reflected in the interactions of FAA with NTSB, as noted by tdracer's post.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 13th Dec 2015 at 09:17.
Reason: correcting a typographical error