Quo Vadis...
alf5071h, any post with a title in Latin, and which at least implies an invite for this SLF/atty to comment further, deserves an effort at something thoughtful, or trying to be.
1) Context for referring to the Congressional legislation (in the nearby posts) was about the changes being a factor in keeping the accident losses in the minds of the traveling public. Wasn't trying to forecast ultimate impact of reform of parts of the FAA process most directly related to safety, or of the overall reform effort in total. But it's a very central question, no doubt. Especially -- besides the reasons you've noted -- because Congress had only quite recently given more latitude to the FAA-Boeing partnership, only to find it necessary now to reverse course.
2) Besides the reforms most directly affecting the certification and safety assurance components of the FAA process, the legislation has other provisions that will contribute (in my view) to improvement. Whistleblower protection is given a boost. Safety audit will be conducted. Disclaiming a thorough study and review of the entire new law - but Committee summaries do note other reforms not so threatened by the Who Guards the Guardians dilemmas.
3) But who does guard them? A cheap and easy answer is, FAA is within Dep't of Transportation, which is headed by a political appointee, and so the recourse for calamitous acts and omissions is the political process (maybe, worse than only cheap, easy). Perhaps a better answer is, the marketplace such as it is - isn't Boeing taking quite a drubbing over its lion's share of the responsibility for this debacle? And maybe the least bad answer is, despite it being an old standby, serious attention to upgrading the educational programs and systems in this and other like-minded and similarly organized countries. Why aren't there more qualified engineers and technical people available to FAA, for example? Same for airframe, propulsion, avionics and so on, in the manufacturing sector. (I was a higher ed lawyer in my most prior legal employment, so apologies for thinking in that frame, if it's too trite or mundane to be tolerated.) Not at all least, and very unfortunately, the unhappy prospect of criminal charges and prosecutions still looms darkly ahead.
(Why does the society emphasize and allow to be glorified materialism, pleasure-seeking, and trampling on (not just disrespect of) nominal, ordinary values of respect? I think plenty of professional aviators of the era of Vern Demerest and Anson Harris, knew plenty about fun and pleasure, but without ignoring, or even mocking very much, the old-school sense that when the No Smoking sign is lit...metaphorically of course. (Apologies to Airport by Arthur Hailey))
4) After the first 737 MAX accident.... There is a discussion of this decision-making, IIRC, in the first of the expected several Inspector General reports - this is just from recollection though, hoping to see the theme. The calculation of FAA and Boeing was a particular and possibly unique kind of bloodless, wasn't it? As I took in a good measure of the Congressional hearings, I noticed that many of the separate communications and decisions in the whole entire sordid mess seemed, in isolation one at a time, not so terribly egregious (many, I said, certainly not all). But the calculation after the first crash? Have Mercy.
5) So none of this really grapples with the Somebody etc. challenge (and being an old ex-hippie, looking for a link to the Airplane, that is Grace Slick and Jefferson Airplane, and Somebody to Love, won't help, either). But a good possibility, I think: in the aftermath, a pretty broad variety and good number of groups all became involved with and focused on the "what happened" of the accidents and their causes upstream. (Causes, in the FAA process, by itself and too cozy with Boeing, and in Boeing as a company and the rise and dominance of beancounting.) And many if not all of these groups also have become involved and some are staying involved in the "what to do" part of the aftermath. For reasons not interesting to this thread, I happen to be a fan of "group communication" - the idea that when groups of qualified individuals assemble to address a problem or design a path forward, the social dynamics of being in a group to begin with sharpens everyone's attention, dampens down and out ulterior motives and agendas, and improves creativity and seriousness. It's anecdotal though over a lot of years and not predominantly within the legal profession. That's where I think improvement will find its source.
2020, in less than 10 hours where I'm situated, will be hindsight. To everyone who has posted on this - sincerely - unbelievably elucidating thread, WillowRun 6-3 says Thank You for allowing an SLF/atty to expiate the ghosts of Aviation Enthusiast New Year's Day in O'Hare Airport Past.