@Uplinker....Certainly. Not every day an objectionable lawyer's post is invited to restate its intended communication.
(I'll leave a few responding comments for the end.)
1. The subject of whether Sullenberger's comments in the press recently are worthy of any special note or should be taken as especially authoritative came up, in response to a post simply noting that Sully had spoken to a reporter. His interview in itself was more than passing interesting because Sully is the most prominent among a group of experts involved in a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against the FAA. Which meant that his interview with the press appeared to be somewhat like free-lancing separate from that lawsuit.
2. The lawsuit is about two basic issues. The first is that the FAA should not be trusted to make a decision about returning the 737 MAX to service without some independent group of experts having a look at its decision-making and its reasoning. And in order to do that, the independent group needs to have all of the documents Boeing gave to FAA about the return to service - so the lawsuit says, anyway.
3. This kind of lawsuit is known as a FOIA action, which stands for Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. federal government and most if not all of the 50 states have FOIA statutes on the books. There are exemptions to the requirement of disclosing documents in a FOIA lawsuit, the most important one here being an exemption for a company's proprietary and confidential information. ("Exemption" is perhaps a lawyer word but then, everyone knows about exemptions from their tax returns, probably.)
4. The parties bringing the lawsuit in Washington are led by a group known as FlyersRights which, as the name implies, is about advocating for the rights of flyers (sorry for this amazing bit of legal reasoning). The prime mover of the group is a gentleman named Paul Hudson. I have made and will make no judgment call about whether the group and/or its lawsuit is more about publicity and currying influence in Washington than about actually providing the public with a trustworthy independent review of FAA decisions and actions in the return to service situation. It can and does speak for itself, and I have, and will continue, neither to criticize it nor advocate for it.
5. However with respect to the panel of experts, I have pointed out that the four individuals other than Mr. Sullenberger have illustrious and long careers to their credit. They too can speak for themselves. At the same time, if someone has several decades of professional engineering experience and an affiliation with, for instance, MIT, then nothing more can - or should - be said. Maybe they're outstanding and stratospherically exceptional, or maybe guys like them are more like the proverbial dime-a-dozen - I don't know and will maintain pure respect for their credentials and qualifications as filed in publicly available court papers.
6. Sullenberger is a different story though. Yes, some aviators have commented that any highly experienced, veteran pilot would have made the same or very similar decisions. But then, such a level of experience, judgment, and grace under pressure isn't a given in every flight deck in every pointy end of every airliner, is it? And Sully has extended his career into consulting. Beyond these observations, again, his credentials and qualifications speak for themselves.
7. Where the lawsuit stands at present is that FAA has completed its disclosure of the requested documents. The parties (FAA, and FlyersRights and Mr. Hudson) have met and conferred and narrowed down their dispute over the FAA's contention that some documents are just too confidential, as far as Boeing is concerned, to be disclosed. Legal briefs about these confidentiality issues are now on a calendar and the court is kind of kicking the lawyers' backsides to get on with things. (Trust me when I say, a federal court judge's kick in the seat of the pants is not something to be desired.)
8. In my posts, I have said, or tried to say anyway, that given the gross failures of Boeing as well as the FAA in the events that led to the two crashes, the ordinary respect for confidentiality issues given to the manufacturer should be reduced. I do not know if the parties suing FAA will argue this in their briefs or not. I also have said that, just as in many other kinds of cases, documents carrying confidentiality interests can be protected by a court order requiring that the lawyers and litigants who see them cannot disclose their contents anywhere to anybody on pain of contempt of court. It's called a Protective Order and they work.
9. The litigation has significance for several other very important developments still in progress. Key among these is the FAA reform legislation pending in the House of Representatives, It has been widely reported that in the previous FAA-related legislation just a few years ago, Boeing succeeded in obtaining yet more independence in the certification process, and many have observed it had become almost self-certification without meaningful FAA oversight. So rebalancing the certification process is going to be important - I don't think this is a controversial observation whatsoever.
(9(A)) The FOIA lawsuit also holds significance for the liability lawsuits against Boeing, and for the reportedly ongoing criminal inquiries, but since I have accepted being admonished for legalese, these are noted without further expansion.)
10. It takes a lot more to offend this SLF/atty.....a lot, lot more. Let's just say that my legal career resulted from getting through the Lawyer School of Hard Knocks. I think that is a phrase in language terms every pro pilot will understand. But even so, Uplinker, believe me, no offense taken whatsoever!!
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 22nd Oct 2020 at 14:28.