OK I had better change my point to WAH to being "I think you are on a different HUMS planet from Bristow".
I suspect that the fundamental difference might be that I believe CHC (?) has a paper techlog, whereas Bristow has a computer-based techlog that records almost everything except for what goes into the paper-based part of it which represents the exchange between the pilots and engineering. What we pilots call the techlog contains only such things as daily/turnround inspections, pilot signing for the aircraft, any pilot reported defects, any deferred defects, configuration changes, groundruns/airtests required etc. It has no information about maintenance work carried out on the aircraft except a number of hours to run to the next inspection.
But I am puzzled how you can allow an aircraft to fly with a HUMS parameter exceeding a threshold? As far as I know we never do that, unless its decided that the problem is a sensor rather than the transmission itself. I certainly don't see how you can have a deferred defect that calls into question the airworthiness of the transmission. That is definitely not in the MMEL!
Are there any pilots out there from WAH and Mitchaa's company that would care to comment on whether they see and are in a position to interpret HUMS trend data and over-ride an engineering decision?
(WAH - posts crossed but never mind!)
HC