you have missed the point
of course the FAA don't certify UK aircraft, that is the platform IPTs job
but if the blade has not been designed to do the job we are asking of it (ie carry people) should we really be expecting it to achieve compliance with UK rules? therefore what degree of non compliance will our aircrews be required to accept and what additional risk does that introduce? (there is no slight on Carson meant here, they have a blade designed against a set of rules, I am just trying to find out what rules)
This also suggests that any future procurement would not HAVE to be Def Stan compliant thus the precedent will have been set as to the level of compliance actually needed, which should allow for a faster and cheaper procurement chain. I guess the team at BD won't be happy, they can't now expect to use one set of rules for a QinetiQ led procurement and yet hold everybody else to a higher standard (the end user should be better served in the long run though).
before anybody rips my head off I have no evidence either way regarding FAR29 compliance, as my earlier posts say, if anyone can point me towards exactly what the blade is certified to I would appreciate it.
thanks in advance DM