On the HUMS Topic, this presents an interesting case, since here we have an aircraft with engine problems in flight. The engine manufacturer in this case does not believe in rejecting engines for faults based on data collected by HUM systems in flight, only engine run up / run down vibration data.
If this instance COULD have been detected by a HUMS, then perhaps the engine manufacturer needs to drag its sorry french arse out of the dark ages, and re-evaluate its procedures.
Secondly, the topic of cockpit displays has been discussed down the years at CAA and HUMS conferences, and opinions vary. As Mr Helicomparitor points out, HUMS data is only ever of use retrospectively, since data is only downloaded after flight, so then, I would throw the questions open to the crews..
1. Would you want a cockpit display to tell you that your engine was developing a malfunction? Bear in mind the severity of the malfunction would be very difficult to establish in flight, and you might feel you need to ditch, what could be an engine which is sufficient to get you home?
2. Is it not a sorry state of affairs, IF it comes to light, that (Not for the first time) an engine fault could have been detected by collecting vibe data in the cruise as opposed to run up?
Of course my questions in relation to this incident are loose and rely heavily on supposition, however, they may yet prove to be very pertinent, well to those in the HUMS business anyway
.
The AAIB report will make interesting reading.
Again, my congratulations to the crew, technology is one thing, but when you are about to go splash into the North Sea, they have proved that science and technology is no substitute for skill and a huge pair of gonads!!
GW