O.K. Enough already!
Who cares whether the airspeed indicator or the seat cushion or the wheels or the lead/lag damper has been certificated under some grandfather clause. The regulatory authorities are not simple!
If either manufacturer (EC or SK) was really concerned with the "grandfather" aspect of certification, and its affect/effect on airworthiness, shouldn't we expect/insist that such manufacturer would withdraw any "grandfather" basis certifications from its existing aircraft, thus rendering them non-airwothy? Could it be that all these protestations are really nothing more than "my sh$t is better than your sh$t"
It would seem that perhaps someone in SK (If we are to believe a current post) does not condone the principles of "grandfathering" when it comes to certification. Don't try to tell me that the 92 is a completely new design and doesn't embody anything from previously certificated helicopters.
If that isn't true, then O.K, who paid who to get this sleight of hand past the regulatory authorities, or is it a generally accepted method of certification.
Methinks that Nick doth protest too much. If there is a real safety issue with the "old rules", why not do something positive other than bleat about it when some other manufacturer improves on an older design. For Chri$ts sake, the S92 isn't a new "design", it's simply a variation of existing technology. (Ditto the EC 225)
Life's for living, get on with it!
STL
Last edited by SawThe Light; 10th Aug 2004 at 06:38.