Cyclic Hotline,
the thread you've linked too is only another facet of the same story.
To reclarify the situation as I understand it, there is a propensity for tail rotor half hubs to develop surface cracks. On very rare occasions, structural cracks have also been found. The position of the CF and RDAF is that they want a simpler inspection technique, with a solid go/nogo criteria, to decide what is or is not a cosmetic crack. the recent moves from both forces are merely intended to apply pressure to AW to solve that challenge. The CF particularly is concerned with liability issues, given they operate a contractor maintained, military owned aircraft.
The UK forces are making do with inspections techniques that are more demanding of human skill and interpretation.
With that said, once it is signed off serviceable, the EH 101 does all that is asked of it and stays on the line like a trooper.
Since this thread is so partisan, I'll join in! I truly regret the decision by the Lieberals to buy the H92. It has a significant development risk (both airframe and systems) and is certain to be later, more expensive and less capable that an EH 101 based solution. For example, can anyone justify why Canada is paying for a FBW system? It was not a MHP requirement, so why are we buying that risk?