"Extremely Remote Failure Conditions are those having an Average Probability Per Flight Hour of the order of 1x 10-7 or less, but greater than of the order of 1 x 10-9."
I have no idea what this equates to in reality, and to be honest to me as a 92 pilot, it is a meaningless figure. I think the 92 is a great aircraft in many respects, and is a vast improvement on other types I have flown in my career, but I still dont like the apparently "extremely remote" chance that I may be the pilot of another machine that has such a failure, and that it may well be at night in 10m swells, with a 55kt wind, and i have to ditch, because I have no back-up option, especially considering the number we have had already in such a short space of time. I believe unless we change things we are condemning another heli-load of people to at best a very unpleasant experience. We need further testing on the MRGB to find out exactly what it is capable of, and what it isn't in the event of loss of pressure. We need a MUCH better system of fault indication, and better drills to deal with it, and we need it last week. Additionally we need some sort of back-up system to provide lube when it goes, and not rely on some sort of run-dry indefinitely. I have been a fan of the 92 in many previous discussions, but this has always been it achilles heel. I have always tended to try and fly below 4000' whenever possible, as many of us do, "just in case", as we all know this is probably the most likely serious failure we are likely to encounter. The fact that it got certification in the first place is now appearing to be a bit of a mystery. We have all assumed (myself included), that the certifying bodies are doing their job, and that if it is deemed fit - then it is. That is history and nothing can be done there, but maybe the certification should be re-opened and re-examined, especially with regard to the idea of "extremely remote".