The IPA agreement was an agreement between Transport Canada and the FAA. If there was anything that did not warrant additional scrutiny, the other validating authority would essentially rubber-stamp that plan. Anything that had a high risk would have a lot more detailed scrutiny. Apparently the MCAS fell under that threshold, so it never had the proper scrutiny it deserved.
However, with regard to the additional plan—and I think it's the road map that you're referring to.—we definitely should be backing away from the additional articles on the agreement. I think we need to fully validate any product that's coming through. Validation is the act of checking or proving the validity or accuracy of something. If you don't know anything about part of what you're given to validate, how can you be validating it?
I think we really have to go back to the whole definition of what “validation” is and also what it means to be “airworthy”. It means to be safe. The plane has to be safe.
There are a lot of issues here. I think we need to go back and look at the whole process.
I don't know how I can expand on that any further.