Originally Posted by
SASless
Well....were I to be confronted with a decision to climb into a 225 based upon that explanation I know exactly what my decision would be......HELL NO!
Laid out the full explanation, show exactly how the analysis was done, the "root cause" replicated.....several times not just once.... and that multiple testing of the aforementioned methods to prove they work......and I would consider it.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The 225 might one day return to the North Sea but I very much doubt. this effort shall succeed due directly to the way the Maker is going about proving they have fixed a very fatal design failure.
The onus is on them to prove beyond a doubt they have it right this time and just saying in so many words "trust us".....just ain't gonna fly.
Does anyone have access to this "proof" and if not....why is it. not in the public domain?
I would think that would be the very best first step in regaining lost trust.
I’ll bite! I’ll never have to put my money where my mouth is, but I’d say “hell yes”
There has only been one accident caused by mechanical failure - nasty and catastrophic. But actually most helicopters crash due to pilot error, and the 225 has very good flight envelope protection making it very safe overall. By the way, I’m discounting the L2 accident because that was a maintenance error.
The passengers always disliked the 225 because it seemed very cramped, even though the 92 was only slightly bigger in terms of floor space. It had a lot more space above one’s head though, so it appeared to be much more spacious. For that reason I’m sure the voters will vote against the 225 even though it is safer than most.