Well, you have to have paperwork claiming it was installed correctly. You don't _have_ to install it correctly. See e.g. doors installed so correctly that they blow out in flight etc.
What's the point of your comment? Should we just install a bunch of accelerometers on planes with faked paperwork because some people faked some paperwork somtime?
Sounds like you're upset at Boeing and figured you would tell us you're upset on an unrelated thread. Note that it doesn't really matter if you are right to be upset at Boeing or not. It's still unrelated.
I think his point is that the proof is expensive, not the act itself. Reminds me of rivets in composites joined by adhesives. The benefit is inspectability. The cost is diminished strength.
Proof that it was installed and working correctly is super easy. Multiple airlines fly the same route. The airlines should be feeding the data to the government and the government can cross-validate that the data is legit for routes that have more than 2 airlines. + the jet stream is quite large so even not the exact same route should still be able to highlight airlines doing fraudulent data by. If they’re not sending data, that’s also super easy to tell.
At some point the cost of trying to lie and cut corners becomes worse than the cost of compliance and the airlines and airplane companies will just become good at doing a good job here.
Making sure this whole operation is set up sounds like a lot of work to me. If you find setting up this kind of thing super easy, I think you should just do it. The benefits seem readily apparent.
Sounds like you're upset at Boeing and figured you would tell us you're upset on an unrelated thread. Note that it doesn't really matter if you are right to be upset at Boeing or not. It's still unrelated.