Good read, had not seen that one before. Right at the end David...

Good read, had not seen that one before. Right at the end David states outright that they were contacted by 17 airlines with the “ is it true you really can now do this”. Dave did ask them to help put more pressure on OEM,s and regulators but they said no we can’t stick our necks out, probably because if it did give a failure their head executives would admonish them? I am assuming this is all about the aft pressure bulkhead, the pending decision for the FAA to place cvm as an alternative method of testing for fatigue cracks. In other words you can continue with the long slow proven methods or try this, your choice.
A good piece of the panels discussion was on the false positives.If your sensor gives a reading and cause the aircraft to be pulled out of service to be stripped down and then find there is no fault, your technology suddenly becomes undesirable.
I Remember years ago a senior airline executive stating if your technology can’t self test for this then don’t waste our time. CVM does test it’s system for false leaks before making the the one for cracks. This is easy for it to do as it is more mechanical in its makeup whereas the competition are using mostly the electromagnetic methods which are more complex in operation.
Its a win win for cvm the aft bulkhead becoming iminent, 17 airlines waiting for this, No false positives.