Without offering a general defense or justification for the presence of attorneys in civil aviation affairs, still it is possible to disagree with some of the prior statements. And also, without disregarding the legitimate concerns for proprietary information disclosed in the certification process.
At the same time, after what went wrong in the design and approval of the 737 MAX, the extent of respect for nominally proprietary information submitted to FAA by Boeing regarding the particular modifications of the aircraft initiated in order to qualify it for FAA approval to return to service should be a debatable question. The Freedom of Information Act request by the plaintiffs in the federal court lawsuit is focused on the changes Boeing proposed to be made. And the entire lawsuit has been focused on a public advocacy role for the plaintiffs and their independent group of experts (one of which is Mr. Sullenberger) - specifically and expressly in light of the FAA's missteps previously - in order to gain assurance that this time around, the aircraft actually is compliant with the certification standards and safe for airline service. (As I said previously, the independent experts and Mr. Hudson can and do speak for themselves with regard to their credentials and qualifications, and more generally also for the bona fides of their public interest advocacy role.)
Besides, the FAA and the plaintiffs quite recently agreed that certain categories of Boeing documents ostensibly responsive to the FOIA demand are no longer being sought. In their joint status report filed with the federal district court last week, the parties set out a schedule for legal briefs on "the application of Exemption 4 [for proprietary information] to documents on the Vaughn Index relating to Boeing’s certification plans, testing methods; test criteria; approaches and methodologies used in product certification, means of compliance, certification plans, means of compliance with regulations and product certification methodologies and safety analyses[.] . . . Plaintiff will not be challenging application of Exemption 4 to technical design details of the aircraft or particular aircraft components, or source and object code for software or description of software architecture or functionality not needed to understand the foregoing items." (Jt. Status Rept, emphasis added). (I'm not going even to credit any implied contention that FOIA lawsuits don't serve a legitimate public interest purpose - and as it happens, this FOIA case is assigned to a veteran district court judge who doesn't tolerate any lawyer shenanigans, no matter how clever.)
Insofar as actual proprietary interests of Boeing are implicated in any of the documentary record upon which FAA is basing its decisions, and further to the degree that Boeing's interests have not been mitigated or even erased by its negligence and malfeasance in the processes by which the 737 MAX gained certification, then certainly a protective order of confidentiality would stand as a valid means of keeping Boeing's secrets out of public circulation. The independent experts all have had long and evidently illustrious careers and would not fit a stereotype of hired junk-science types who would disregard and violate a court order of confidentiality and non-disclosure.
Without taking the bait of an argument about lawyers in general in their involvement in civil aviation affairs, notice that the U.S. Congress is going to rewrite the certification statute (a pretty large piece of legislation already cleared the House Committee with both parties' endorsement and will move forward in the next Congress, next year, without question). If it is to be contended that legislation should be done without competent legal counsel involved, concerns about regaining public trust, and respect for U.S. aviation system process and content, can be left behind. And beyond that, many posts in a number of threads have wailed upon Boeing senior management for its gross misdeeds over several years - including all but seducing the Congress in the previous FAA reauthorization bill (with regard to granting the company materially greater independence in certification processes). So the answer is to shun competent and knowledgeable legal counsel in trying to redress the situation?
Again, the plaintiffs in the FOIA document disclosure case against FAA can and do speak for themselves. And at the same time, after reading the JATR, the Complaint by SWAPA, the Dept of Transportation Inspector General Report, and the investigation report by the House Committee, if it is contended that the proprietary interests of Boeing hold the same standing in light of these findings as they would hold absent all of these reports and allegations, post this SLF as respectfully disagreeing.