Sooooooo.....if no requirement to show compliance with the original design criteria for plastic wind screens or any other STC'd component....who totes the bucket now?
Just how could the FAA approve an STC for a wind screen and NOT require proof it meets the same standard as the item it is replacing?
Did Sikorsky know of this problem before they issued their letter suggesting restricted airspeeds and NOT pass that bit of knowledge along to its customers?
Under the concept of "burden of knowledge" would they not be compelled legally to have done so?
If PHI installed the plastic wind screens knowing they had not been tested or had not been proven to be as strong as the glass screens they replaced, or were aware of the need to restrict the airspeed prior to the accident....what liability do they hold now?