I've been retired for 12 years - I don't know what today's processes are. Nacelle failing - would not Boeing doe a DFMEA on nacelle if they found deterioration from years of use, then go to the FAA explaining the urgency? Or is the FAA a roadblock to fast response? I have difficulty listening to experts say the FAA should have caught issues. Being an engineer for 47 years going through design process developments over 5 decades, I cannot fathom how inspectors are supposed to know more about the design and function than the crew designing. My second cousin once removed, who began his career with Boeing in the 1940's and retired after doing finite element analysis on the B-2 in the 1990s, reminisced about how our 2 industries - aviation vs automotive - weren't all that different although his team needed to do a lot more explaining to the people overseeing the project about what they should be looking for. Automotive a lot more reactive. In the nacelle failure incidents, I would foresee a process like finding and analyzing a problem, producing the documentation to the FAA recommending prompt repair. Yet the need to avoid statements or even inferences that if we don't make this change, people are going to die (Applegate memorandum). Living outside Senlis, France, I visited the DC-10 crash site many times to refresh the lesson of how engineers can screw up, assembly and maintenance can multiply the screw up, and even when a pilot like Bryce McCormick tells you that you have a big problem you fail to respond. And even worse sitting on a witness stand reviewing accident pictures when you've been trying to twist arms to implement a change and due to bureaucracy, being forced to defend.