GlobalNav, thanks for the question . . . . probably the best answer is to say that incremental progress counts too.
To start, the group assembled by Flyers Rights includes people who have - or at least to a non-engineer, non-pilot, appear to have - pretty strong credentials. This is not saying any of them (Capt. Sully included) belong hoisted up on top of a pedestal of authoritativeness. But compared to, say, the average inquisitor in a Congressional hearing? Or to attorneys on any and all sides of the litigation directly related to the crashes?
By itself, the fact of review by the FR group might not convince an objective observer (even one striving for logic and rationality) that any progress toward fuller disclosure will result. But.... FAA had dug in pretty strongly in the district court on its statutory basis for withholding proprietary information it received from Boeing. I haven't devoted time needed to read the cross-motions for summary judgment on the confidentiality issue filed in the district court late last year. (As an aside, "cross-motions" just means both parties in the lawsuit filed this type of motion, each one claiming that the undisputed factual record leads inexorably and necessarily to a ruling in its favor now, summarily.) Maybe FAA gave some ground in that briefing though I would doubt it. But it did make a concession in the appellate case.
So with the credentialed group reviewing the docs, and the Court reviewing them also, and in light of this being a change from FAA's position in the trial court, I could understand a ruling by the Court of Appeals which, shall we say, encourages the district court action to yield certain results. Among other things, the need for Boeing confidentiality to be sacrificed in this one very unique and very serious situation can be said to override all the factors usually cited to support upholding nondisclosure of proprietary information. To unfairly modify a familiar phrase, the unprecedented aftermath of completely senseless crashes calls for unprecedented but one-time overriding of confidentiality. Or if this is too controversial, at least it is the correct argument to assess.
This isn't a prediction that if the appellate court denies the motion to dismiss and FAA follows through on the limited, under seal, disclosure, that necessarily more public disclosure will result. But the facts of the procedural posture of these cases do suggest to this SLF/att'y that such a result seems to be brewing, and don't we all think it's high time, way past high time, for Boeing to wake up and smell the coffee.