> To be frank, if I worked at the FAA, I'd be kicking and screaming to resolve any level of concern raised by engineers in good faith before giving the go ahead

> To be frank, if I worked at the FAA, I'd be kicking and screaming to resolve any level of concern raised by engineers in good faith before giving the go ahead. I agree and I'd like to add that in my opinion the airplane now needs to actually be better than its competitors. If it isn't and there is another accident (big or small, that might or might not involve deaths but which might even slightly be related to MCAS or other systems having similar design flaws) then I think that there would be again another (bigger?) round of repercussions: for the plane itself, for Boeing and for the FAA. Saying this because I imagine that a negative event might become a final public and/or political confirmation that 1) the FAA & Boing cannot be trusted and that 2) the airplane has just too many flaws that need to be addressed. Therefore, to avoid this, the plane must be absolutely rock-solid otherwise if anything happens people will immediately ask Boeing and especially FAA "why did you create/approve this thing - are you incompetent and/or stupid and/or unscrupulous?". A very interesting topic, in my opinion :)