In reply to Jim A at #1377 evolution of ODA is explained in Notice of Proposed Rule Making at
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...ion-procedures
NPRM leaves no doubt that purpose of ODA is to reduce FAA’s involvement in certification. FAA strenuously denies that ODA amounts to self-certification, notwithstanding that NPRM states
“The proposal requires the ODA Holder to perform self-audits and ensure that no one interferes with individuals performing functions for the FAA. ....”
And
“The ODA Holder is ultimately responsible for the functions performed by the ODA Unit....”
ODA was deficient when 787 battery debacle happened - see my post at #1216. It still wasn’t working effectively when DoT Office of Inspector General reported in October 2015 that “
FAA LACKS AN EFFECTIVE STAFFING MODEL AND RISK-BASED OVERSIGHT PROCESS FOR ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION”.
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/defaul...5E10-15-15.pdf. So who knows what other hazards are lurking.
Only meaningful way to restore trust in 737 Max is a Special Certification Review for which FAA has explicit statutory power. Read about examples such as MD-11 at
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcont...3&context=jalc.