Guys
After just coming in by supply vessel dodging pack ice and icebergs, 24 hours this time but could have been longer if the narrows had stayed blocked, myself and my fellow offshore colleagues are waiting for the conclusive offshore task force investigation results before we decide to resume flying in S-92s. I myself personally still want answers and physical proof that these helos are being maintained to the highest possible standard, with all known or suspected key component mode failures addressed. Can HUMS help identify faults such as MGB stud pending failure, I think not.
Emotions are still sensitive over here, time is a great healer and in our case is directly linked to PAX confidence in helos. The Bond Puma accident last week could not have happened at a worse time, not that any time is good. Here is an aircraft with an excellent safety record, proving to us all that sometimes accidents happen with completely unforeseen circumstances. This IMO does not apply to the MGB stud failure on 491 as this was previously experienced in July 2008.
Some interesting posts wrt. torquing sequence/procedures and other titanium bolts on critical components. Hopefully these issues will have been addressed by all parties and we will have a safer S-92a.
Personally I would still like to see a 30-minute dry-run time, but being realistic I'll settle for a land immediately RFM condition being enforced and more robust preventative maintenance schedule on critical components. I'll also check out my life insurance cover and make sure that flying in helos is covered...