now completing the approval process directly with the FAA
Wasn’t it always the case that STC’s were approved by the FAA and not the manufacturer?
Depressurisation concerns I expect
EDTO approval covers such an event so unlikely to be the reason for the alleged removal.
Yet to see any EDTO revocation evidence asked for in a previous post.
My memory may be a bit dim but aren’t EDTO approvals the responsibility of the relative authority (e.g. CASA) in the operator’s State (e.g. Australia) subject to the propulsion reliabilty requirements being met? Providing the manufacturer’s EDTO maintenance criteria are met it is the State that grants EDTO approval, not the manufacturer.