Focusing & expanding your "deserves": I guess that I agree at least partially with you (even without the 2nd incident, for which no official facts have been pr

Focusing & expanding your "deserves": I guess that I agree at least partially with you (even without the 2nd incident, for which no official facts have been presented - but therefore I cannot upvote you as there is no confirmation yet, sorry), thinking about the facts that e.g. MCAS is not intuitive to understand/use for the pilots and that it relies on only 1 sensor (at least the original version) (any other flaw?). About the consequences: I just hope that the whole investigation won't boil down to just some "crazy" engineers that implemented that system because they were having a bad day or had no clue about what they were doing etc... . Top-management must have known (at least implicitly/indirectly) the risks associated to a tight deadline and/or a miracle-like re-engineering of an old airplane and/or not having airplane-hackers available during the re-engineering phase and/or etc... because one of the roles of top management is to ask questions when something out of the ordinary happens especially when A LOT of money is involved. Of course if top-mgmt puts enough pressure to achieve something, no questions will arise from both ends (and here we can probably optimistically go into the area of whistleblowers :) ). I think that the same thing can be applied to Volkswagen (e.g. impossible that some engineer came up with "and here we have a Diesel engine outputting half as much noxious gas as everybody else on the planet" and nobody else asked questions because the mgmt wasn't pressuring those departments to get exactly such results) and other previous scandals.