GLS:
Thanks for that - although I'm not sure that it adds any to my understanding. Hopefully, operational and certification rules are not subverted in the way you imply. We all have sympathy for the US (and the planet) whilst manna rules.
Nick:
A well constructed and eloquently argued position. The exchanges between you and Zalt have been interesting.
My understanding is that, contrary to your contention, the rules for HUMS in the UK are likely to be driven down the route of operational requirements - exactly as you are advocating. Thus, once outside the certification scope, MELs can be constructed to permit elements of the HUMS to be out of service for defined periods. The periods of unserviceability will obviously have to be risk assessed to ensure that the ramp of a trend cannot lead to an event during those periods of unserviceability (this assumes of course that trends are monitored - see later).
The operational approach also permits the appropriate level of software certification to provide cost savings (hopefully to be passed on to the customer). Upgrades will also appear quicker and will be cheaper.
We all applaud the willingness of the manufacturers, at last, to join the party and make HUMS systems an integral part of the aircraft build.
It would be an additional improvement if secondary analysis of HUMS data could be introduced to further improve the knowledge and safety of the industry by removing other nasty 'surprises'. Do Sikorsky intend to reconfigure and warehouse the downloaded data to permit such secondary analysis for clusters and trends?
As it would appear that operational rules will be the catalyst for change, is it possible that you could further expand on the impact of the S92 (and other modern machines) on operational standards; do you expect that there will be a move - either by the customers, operators or the regulators - to raise the bar and to squeeze out the machines that are more susceptible to gravity, or do not meet the improved safety standards.
(in the North Sea with the crew feeding regimes, that might properly be gravy)?