Originally Posted by
ExXB
Six have been implemented. Great the system works as it should.
14 have not. Before deploring FAA/EASA inactivity I'd like to understand what the recommendations were, and why the FAA/EASA believed them to be unacceptable.
Too little information here.
AAR1003 - PDF NTSB Flight 1549.
Recommendations begin at page 141.
From working with the US Dept of Agriculture to figure out a way to minimize bird strikes (not a bad goal) to requesting Airbus redesign a specific part of the fuselage structure and expand training to (wisely) further explore pitch control issues within Alpha protection, to the (almost laughable) procedural changes when loss of power occurs down low, the recommendations are, not all, but in part, a laundry list of items that narrowly focuses on the unique circumstances of 1549 rather than addressing broader safety concerns.
In a sentence, post accident, the NTSB is typically pie in the sky, while the FAA works with airlines and industry to (for the most part at least) issue practical guidance that tends to be more pragmatic.