Originally Posted by
Bksmithca
I think that your trying to make an orange an apple. A gearbox or engine that falls off a truck is going to likely sustain some damage. But an engine or gearbox that stops suddenly because of accident is going to sustain a lot of damage some of it visible and some of it won't be know until someone attempts to use it on an airframe. I think that the regulators as a whole need to ban the reusing of any part involved in an accident
Of course it goes without needing to say if the mfg says parts are to be pitched then out they go. In cases where that is not specified there will always be people who see no reason they shouldn't reintrroduce items that pass the prescribed inspection or overhaul back into service. You have no idea how far the gearbox fell, how it landed, if it was properly protected in a can or sitting on rubber tires. I think its fine if regulators were to ban reuse of accident parts or assemblies but they would never do that because there are too many parameters to define. Manufacturers would love it, operators would have some legitimate complaints. Turnng a t/r driveshaft into a twisted broken mess from a tail rotor strike might not be a reason to pitch a gas coupled compressor rotor or at least it's housing, for example. I am not saying it would be a good idea, just that it is more complicated in a world where people weigh money and convenience against what they think is being safe.