Rainy cold day here....second cup of Coffee in hand and some time on my hands while I anticipate the Army-Navy Football game this afternoon at which the World pauses for a few hours (for those like me anyway)!
After reading all of the posts I have garnered some thoughts on this tragedy....mostly relating to the design of the Tail Rotor Control system on the Mishap Aircraft.
I have only the knowledge gathered by means of the posts here and some articles in the media.
I assume the 169 and 189 share a common design ( or identical systems common to the two types) thus the AD's apply only to the 169/189.
The design must not be as "simple" as suggested due to the various discussions upon what role all the various components played in that event.
The conversation about which Nut loosened/tighten and so forth....was indicative of that.
Some questions:
Why did the 169/189 wind up with this particular design of Tail Rotor Control system?
Is the design "new" and "different" to all previous such systems used by AW?
If so....if a new and unique design for the 169/189.....why?
Did the Design Team ever consider such a failure mode during the design and testing process?
If so....how did they resolve any issues that arose?
Is this design "failure tolerant" to the minimum degree necessary assuming inspection and servicing intervals and procedures were properly carried out at the factory and by the operator ?
Is this design an actual improvement over past designs or is it too complicated/complex in design?
Are there design flaws that set the stage for just such a failure as this to occur?
Is there a method to shut off the hydraulic pressure to the Tail Rotor Servo(s) and if so....would the Tail Rotor assume a somewhat neutral position?
(As violent and rapidly as the aircraft reacted to this actual failure.....I am thinking there would have been scant time for analyzing the problem by any Pilot.)
Anyone else have these or similar questions about the AW-169/189 Tail Rotor Control System?