Having not had a public debacle around them, how much effort would it take for you to personally certify that MCAS is the only novel system of its caliber on these aircraft?
The FAA should have pulled schematics directly from Boeing engineering during certification. And the FAA should have someone with enough technical expertise and experience look at them. And that person should have said "The submitted information by Boeing doesn't include full details on this subsystem."
Whether or not the Boeing test pilot highlighted the system for the FAA is a red herring. It's the FAA's job to find this, regardless of whether someone points them at it.
If the FAA doesn't have the technical staffing or expertise to do this, then that's the problem. Charging the test pilot is necessary, but not sufficient.
If the FAA infrequently performs this work (certification of a new aircraft), then flex in retired expertise! You can't tell me there aren't qualified, retired candidates (ex-industry or ex-FAA) who would have signed up for a year or two review. And all the better that they don't have career incentives!
Essentially, this is the FAA charging Boeing for not doing the FAA's job correctly.
Me? What makes you think I would have information on this?
If I had to hazard a random guess, I would think that, if you're talking about the MAX 8, there have been enough leaks and testimonies and whistleblowers that any comparable system would have probably been mentioned somewhere. I have no idea either way, I haven't read everything that's gotten out. But I don't see why a regulator couldn't use various means to figure stuff like this out with reasonably high confidence.
The FAA was aware that this system existed.
So it's probably most accurate to say "the FAA was aware of the system existing, but incorrect on the details of that system."
That process would include validating all aspects of the mechanical specifications and changes of parts (reused already OK parts from the same authorized suppliers would be a quick check-off), mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer software, and any changes for maintenance and end operators.
Describing it fully like that, I believe the only benefit to 'type certification' should be training for the end users, but major overhauls should require retraining and that should be caught.
