Originally Posted by
Gearjerk
Lastly, the answer to your question. "YES," we would still have FAR117, whether or not the accident (Colgan 3407) had happened like it did. Do you remember what happened a only one month prior to the Colgan accident? Do an internet research of Airbus landing in the Hudson river, in January 2009. (Ring a bell?)
I'm afraid you're misinformed on this.
The legislation was bogged down and effectively tabled, despite Sully's patronage. It wasn't until the families of the Flt 3407 victims embarked on a grassroots lobbying campaign with influential MoC that the law moved forward. I would have done the same if I was one of them. Without their persistence, the law would not have been passed.
So, yes, FAR117 really is as simple as a guy not being able to do a stall recovery. Numerous articles on how the process unfolded. Here's one.
Flight 3407 Families Succeed in Forcing New Safety Regulations for Airlines - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com