I have already made apologies to those concerned and re-focussed the thread back on subject. If someone dare start a thread on accident speculation go for it..
As my thread has been hijacked there is one thing I will say in finality before it goes back on track:
If you hear of my fatality, (touch wood) Please note: I am saying now:
Please do discuss my error, go ahead and analyse, talk, brainstorm and figure out my error(s). Spread the word on my possible mistakes so you can at least say.. well K48 ate it in these conditions with that equipment.. So maybe we'll take it easy in those conditions with that equipment.. I would be grateful. And I mean before the AAIB report comes out... the day after would be best. Thanks.
So, now you know my final wishes, back on thread? Hyd Lock.. dual systems..
NicKlappos, thanks for that. Very helpful. That has probably answered my question. Yours copied below. I wonder if you know this example, re The Hyd check at 60% N1 on the 206 during start up.. is this check for 'stick jump' for servo weakness (and perhaps potential Hyd Lock) as you describe.. ?
<Nicklappos wrote:>The new item that K48 throws out (he calls it hydraulic lock) has nothing to do with a maneuvering helo, it is a condition that old worn out servos might get, or servos with worn seals, and it is rare enough indeed. When it does show up, it can be seen during the controls check during runup, when each servo is felt while the other is turned off, and weak servos usually tell themselves by producing jumps as the systems are switched, and odd forces when the bad servo is manipulated.>