Originally Posted by
spornrad
Tail wagging the dog: no Fail-Safe implementation was choosen reflecting an unacceptable safety culture during the design phase of the MAX, violating company precedence. The Fail-Safe mandate should have been obvious from the beginning, once the aft column cutout override was added. If nothing less, to follow the other Boeing model implementations (which are all Fail-Safe).
There is an other very important aspect in the "Tail wagging the dog" section that struck me because I have witnessed it first hands before:
Hazard Analysis being done as a pro forma excercise to sign off an existing design, not as part of discovering subsystem requirements before implementing something.
But doing proper system requirements first, then discovering subsystem requirements is so 80ies. Today everybody is "agile", because it's faster and cheaper you know. And it has proofed to work for crappy IPhone apps.
So for this one top down company culture is to blame and nothing else!