212
Many thanks for adding that detail. Fascinating as it may be the point I was making is that the test seeks to second guess the failure mode which, as we can see does not entertain any other internal damage or maybe oil contamination that may shorten bearing life or vibration which may exacerbate the possibility of gear teeth fracture.
I'm not trying to create an inventory of failure modes but simply saying that we as flight crew are not well placed to understand the exact nature of a failure when we are given some simple information via Ts and Ps and possibly accelerometers and chip detectors.
My gut feel is that we should find somewhere to put down anytime we doubt the airworthiness of the machine. This would typically be because of a fire hazard, hydraulic problems or transmission problems. Clearly we don't want to throw the aircraft into the water at the first sign of a malfunction because the chances of it ever flying again are slim but that said I would rather be embarrassed than dead. The SAR 332L2 in NL last year (or was it the year before?) is a case in point. Who cares about the airframe when everybody gets back alive. If a bunch of machines end up in Davy Jones's Locker then maybe the insurance companies will have something to say about it and we will be forced to improve things. What worries me is the angst caused by the survivability issues surrounding a ditching. We somehow have to make it a more attractive option. I can’t imagine that the Canadian crew of this S92a would have turned down the safety of a Liferaft if they had considered it a safer option.
G.