The FAA training review may be triggered by the Boeing 737 Max crashes, but I wasn't specifically talking about Boeing. The public misunderstands the role betw

The FAA training review may be triggered by the Boeing 737 Max crashes, but I wasn't specifically talking about Boeing. The public misunderstands the role between FAA and Boeing. Boeing is the ODM, so safety is largely delegated to Boeing. That is necessary because the FAA does not have aircraft designers on staff, and won't, because aerospace keeps advancing. What is needed is criminal penalties for what Boeing did regarding the inaccurate MCAS FAA filings. Congressional representatives have at times pursued fraud charges against pilots for various reasons. The problem is that if they do that against campaign donors, then those briefcases of cash will disappear. https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206 To offer something constructive: 1) In American corporate mgmt., discussion and accountability is diffused across multiple teams. Even attempting to use the word accountability is perceived as "a problem." 2) That's compounded when you have complex systems that use both hardware and software. In the case of the 737 MAX, you have external sensors subject to weather and damage, internal wiring and software. In this case it appears the software was outsourced. It would take their best Sr. Engineers to trace through that and say anything definitive. See #1 for why it's not worth it as an employee. 3) Submitting FAA aerospace compliance documents and outsourcing software development may simply be incompatible due to change management iterations and accountability. So my summary would be that Boeing needs to be re-organized around accountability instead of penny-pinching. That would require turning a huge company inside-out. None of the founders are left. The current CEO has that mandate, but seeing is believing.