Originally Posted by
Commander Taco
That forms the basis of the whistleblowers allegations. As a post-production engineer with responsibility to ensure that the finished product meets both the pre-production build and the pre-production certified standard, he alleges that the aircraft do not meet those requirements.
Given the allegations, is it possible to determine whether they are consistent with, or not consistent with, the analysis and evidence reported by Aviation Week in the article and the podcast? The reporting is based on inputs provided by Boeing; if their source is a reason to doubt those inputs are complete or even accurate, then it still is "information" as reported by the magazine. Though a less certain determination, are the allegations consistent with this information or not?
FAA presumably will reply to the letter filed by Mr Salehpour's attorneys. But until then . . .
Also given the content of various posts following the one in which I summarized the AW&ST article, the refusal to release the documents that were filed with FAA together with the attorney's letter now seems even more difficult to understand. The predicate for the hearing before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - where the whistleblower testified - was that (paraphrasing) the American people have a right and/or need to know if these airplanes are safe. On what basis are the American people being told to ponder this question with only part of the relevant information? Is it because once FAA completes its review, the entire filing will be made public?