Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures. Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the

Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures. Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps. Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.