They're about as well prepared to deal with computers as people who had a teddy bear when they were children are prepared to be a veterinary.
Both: Airlines from other countries refuse to fly in US airspace because of dangerous ATC and planes from the US are refused entrance in the airspace of other countries because the FAA isn't trusted to enforce proper maintenance schedules on planes from US companies and other countries don't want the additional cases of planes falling from the sky or crashing on landing that would result from de facto unregulated air travel safety in the US.
Also Boeing sales would suffer if the FAA was officially deemed in other countries to not have equivalence with their local air-travel regulators when it came to oversight of plane manufacturing because it wasn't actually doing the job of preserving the safety of air-travel.
Forced diversity characters are generally just cringe.
Characters who are normal people who just happen to be female, of a minority ethnicity, non-heterosexual and so on are generally as good as all other characters because that's just about people living live in an imaginary situation, so just like in the real world not everybody there is a white heterosexual male and people who aren't white heterosexual males are, just like the white heterosexual males ones, not some stereotyped cartoon cutout of a person.
(That said, in Action movies, especially XX century, often all characters are stereotyped cartoon cutouts of a person)
This also dovetails with how Modern Acting techniques work: good actors will naturally play more believable characters in more believable situations because the actor also has their own version of "suspension of disbelief" going on.
If you want a neutral metaphor, it's like the difference between seeing a scene in a Film or TV Series which is pretty obviously product placement for a cola brand were one or more of the characters are using said product in a way that makes sure its brand is seen and mentioned vs a perfectly normal scene were somebody just happens to be drinking something that looks like a cola - the entire vibe is totally different between having something which is not a natural story element shoved there to fulfill objectives other than telling a good story and just telling a good story that naturally reflects the real world in its many facets hence all that's there just feels natural.
Yeah, that stuff it's pretty hard to learn and it's worse when you've never worked in an environment where people in general tend to practice good time management - a lot of things you would normally not risk doing because they look like time wasting turn out to be the key to saving time, avoid wasted work (i.e. time wasted) and avoid problems later (which in turn, also means time when you're the one who has to fix them), but only after you've seen it in action can you know for sure that such things will in overall save you time (and can actually justify spending time doing them to others because you've seen them actually work).
I was lucky that after 2 years working, having chosen to leave my country I ended up in The Netherlands, and the Dutch are very good at working in an efficient and organized way that properly respects work-life balance, so I learned a lot from them and watching and learning how they worked and what resulted of working that way gave me a whole new perspective into the work practices from my first job which I until then though were "the way everybody works in this area".
No idea. I learned it from a manager who went into a management course, was taught it and not even a week later was back in full reactive mode treating any new thing coming in as Urgent Important even when non-urgent or at least non-important, as she had been doing before going to that course.
Let's just say she was a lousy manager.
Well, as joel_feila pointed out, people tend to be forced to, at the very least, work in the Urgent and Important quadrant because that's what one has to give top priority to, no matter what (and part of the work of triaging the demands on one's time is to make sure one doesn't miss or delay things from that quadrant because of too many Non Important stuff interrupting one's work).
However you want to try and get yourself in a situation were Non-Urgent Important stuff is what you do most, because amongst other things by tacking potential problems in Important domains before they become Urgent, you have a lot more space to do it properly, something which in turn avoids further problems due to one's half-arsed solutions for Urgent not working anymore of breaking easilly when touched.
In summary, Non-Urgent Important is the ideal, Urgent Important is what gets top priority, Non-Important is what you do when there's nothing in the other 2 quadrants to do.
The whole point of triaging incoming demands and doing all you can to subtly train the people upstream who are already informed of the importance and urgency of something to only get it to you in a way that interrupts your work if those things are indeed urgent, is exactly to create and maintain the space that lets you address most things in the Non-Urgent Important quadrant before they transit into the Urgent Important one.
If you don't have "thinking things through" and "maintenance/tweaking" time you're going to get a lot more fires and a lot more of the fires which start small grow into full-blown fires before you spot them, all of which just turns into a feedback cycle were all that urgent firefighting means you don't have time for preparation, prevention and detection, which in turn creates more fires and more small fires growing hence you have to spend more time in urgent firefighting.
To be honest, in my entire career I have never managed to, in a specific job, pull out from a "constant urgent firefighting mode" to a "mostly steady mode of work with an urgent fire having to be fought once in a while": making it happen has always been a case of me starting a new job and bringing in best practices from the start, so that by the time I'm finished with learning the environment, and integrating with a new team, and am working full speed, I'm keeping things under control. Doing it from the start of a new job is often possible because in my area (Software Engineering) people aren't expected to hit the ground running at full speed (since you have to learn the installed codebase and integrate with the team) so there's a lot of leway when starting a new job which you can use to set expectations from the start and to justify the extra time it takes to actually get a decent work process in place.
As I've written somewhere else, I've actually managed to bring over and use the Dutch style of working in a British Finance environment (which is hectic and prone to shoot-from-the-hip management and firefighting) to yield better results (faster and more predicable deliveries, were the work I made was better matched to user needs and had fewer bugs) than most of my colleagues and did all this working 8h/day rather than the 10h+/day they did.
IMHO, the process works, and I believe that's the merit of the process rather than being a "me" thing.
From what I've observed when living in the UK and now that I'm living in Portugal, it's shit management practices all the way up, with the politicians at the top being the worst managers of the lot.
But yeah, I can empathise with being in an work place were no matter what you do to try and manage your time to deliver your best (as the years went by in my career, I've learned various professional occupations which are are part of the "feed-in" for the main work I do, to quite an advanced level, merely as a means to improve my performance at delivering the right results at the right time, which is taking efficiency improving to quiet an extreme level), it just feels that all levels all the way up are working against you and that you're just rowing against the current all the time.
Fortunatelly for me, I can just change employers and even countries if I think the overall work conditions are shit and I will never be able to properly manage my time, though I've noticed that plenty of medical professionals can't, plus in my experience, when you're snowed in by out of control inflows of work, you don't generally have the energy to even start planning your way out of it.
That said, having moved from The Netherlands (whose management and work culture is generally very good) and into Finance in the UK (which is a pretty hectic and ill organised "shoot from the hip" environment), it's perfectly possible to apply the techniques of highly organised and well managed environments in disorganised ones to produce superior results (in speed, quality and predictability of delivery timings) to those of everybody else there.
That said, I'm talking about Software Engineering here, which is a Logic+Creative area were you can "backup your patient" before you do something in case you make a mistake, unlike Medicine (though in Finance things can get "interesting" - read millions of dollars can be lost - if your code starts getting used by Traders and it's not working properly). On the other hand one would expect that in Medicine, being properly rested in order to reduce the risk of mistakes is even more important.
I did that when I started (I am, modesty on the side, a natural at what I do for work) and the result was that I became the top problem-solver of my team and over time I had more and more load from people bringing me their problems whilst still being expected to do the formally allocated work, with the end result that when I left that job I was working very long hours, always tired and my productivity had plummeted.
What was happenning there was that, because of me always saying "yes, I'll help you" with zero pushback, I became the easiest path for people in my team to quickly solve their problems, and that was including problems they could solve themselves. Also my effectiveness at doing anything fell massivelly because whatever I was doing, in the middle of it I would be interrupted (which has quite the cognitive cost due to interruption of the mental state of Flow and "mental context switching") and if I immediatelly went into solving that new problem I would likely be interrupted at that too (leading to multiple things hanging half-way to done and making my delivery speed overall worse), and even if I wasn't interrupted serving the latest interruption the mere "stop this task, do something else equally complex, then get back to the original task" increased the probability of mistakes in the original task because of the possibility of losing track of important details of the work I was doing in it.
Human beings are naturally lazy (myself included) and if, because you offer no pushback, coming to you with any problem is easier and faster than trying to figure it out themselves, people will tend come to you with their problems before properly after little or no effort to solve it themselves, which might be doable (though not good for them or for you) if it's only one or two people, but not when it's more than that.
If only to avoid becoming the minimum-effort-path for everybody else and/or having your efficiency drop because of not enough single-task focus and too much context switching (and the entire team's efficiency fall compared to them solving all the problem they can solve themselves), you have to do some pushing back.
You aren't hired to do the work of others and neither are you hired to underperform because you're in constant firefighting mode even for things which are unimportant or not really burning, so immediate response to any demand on your time from somebody else is pretty much the most amateurish, least professional way to do your work for anybody which is not a junior-level professional.
That said, if you're lucky enough to be in a situation were you empowering others to work better is recognized and desired or, even better, you're expected to and have officially time to be a mentor, then you can relax the pushing back: you still should triage the urgency of your response to things to match their actual urgency - that's just basic competence at organising your time and work - but you can now when approached by somebody with a problem dedicate some time to teach people to help themselves (literally have them sit down and explain how to diagnose and fix it whilst they do it themselves) both so that they don't constantly come you with simple problems (which isn't really the value added stuff you're being paid a Senior level professional cost to do) and for them to grow as professionals, and if you're mentoring you'll want to go further and periodically sit with the junior types and do overviews of things or help them out in planning how to tackle a complex thing they're about to start.
Still, in all this, you have to plan your time and triage access to you time based on urgency and importance in order to mantain good performance and actually deliver results in a predictable way, So as to best fits the needs of your employer: for any employee beyond junior level, good time management (which includes the priority of your response to queries and problems match the importance and real urgence of them) is just simple professional competence and since the triaging itself is a time cost (quite a big one if it breaks you out of Flow and forces a mental context switch), you want it done in the most effective way as possible and by the more well informed about the important and urgency of the situation as possible, which means most of it should be done upstream and before getting to you.
Well, I'm sorry for you guys to have to work under the worst of American management culture (the baseline of which, compared to Northern Europe and Scandinavia, is pretty bad).
Coming from a Southern Europe country and having worked in a couple of countries including Northern European ones, it's my experience that a lot of those abusive work practices you see in Anglo-Saxon and Southern European management cultures are neither needed nor efficient, and instead are just the product of bad organisation (read: incompetent management) and employees enduring it under the mistaken assumption that "that's just the way things are"/"there is no other option" because they've never worked in an environment with proper management.
If there is one thing that going to Northern Europe and working there taught me is that those things are almost never needed and most definitelly are not universally the way things are.
The only surprise here is that it took them this long to do it.
If the FAA is deemed to not be equivalent anymore to the local air-safety regulators, planes from US-based companies will stop being allowed to fly in the airspace of other countries and planes made in America will not be certified for flying in that airspace or being purchased by companies in those countries until fully checked (at great cost) by a certification authority under the regulatory oversight of a local regulator or one deemed equivalent.
This will quite likely start by the EASA (European Air Safety Agency) not accepting FAA as an equivalent regulator anymore.