I don't think we do have to disagree.
When an agency makes the rules it has to weight public opinion. Right now the FAA gets the lions share of that burden. Since the NTSB doesn't write the rules it misses a good share of the flack put up by surviors groups, the airlines, the unions, politicians, manufactures, ect, ect, ect. This allows it to do it's job which is to investigate accidents and look at them mainly from a purely what happened where point of view. I feel that all of that pressure and lobbying that the FAA takes is the real reason why you don't see rules passed. It isn't malaise at Oklahoma City. I feel that if you shift rulemaking power to the NTSB you also shift a lot of the before mentioned influences into crash investigation. The result is incunclusive and dumbed down reports like you see coming from the French government (The Air-Inter A-320 and the Roselawn ATR crash in particular) or the Dutch governments work of fiction on the Teneriffe crash. This will have a much worse effect on safety then people realise.
I don't think a lot of people out there give enough appreciation for the amount of bull that the FAA puts up with when it writes a rule. It is the one that is tasked with takeing a purely scientific report from the NTSB weighing it against economic and political concerns. Either way it is stuck with the S--- job of trying to please everybody and of course they end up with the goat.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.