HUMS, GE neural model, existing flight instrumentation, new gearbox design. We can always improve from where we are today...
As an engineer I am used to embracing new technology. Too much information or too little knowledge is dangerous, but with proper system engineering and end-user training I can see how SKY and EC should be able to improve on their existing condition monitoring systems.
What what I've gleaned on the various threads the technology is there, it just needs to be firmed up to better provide the engineer and ultimately the end-user (flight commander) pre-flight check data to decide if the equipment is serviceable and as safe as reasonably practicable.
Is it not better to err on the side of caution e.g. if HUMS thresholds are exceeded because they are not "tuned" then surely non-acceptance of helos by engineers and pilots will up the ante to get this issue resolved. If this methodology is impractical then the GE prototype system should be further developed to enhance the current available HUMS threshold setting methodology.
Who pays for this way forward? Might I suggest a joint venture between the operators, helo manufacturers and the oil companies, who generally end up owning the helos and leasing them out to the operators.
It also sounds like various operators are applying HUMS exceedences differently. Why is there no synergy here, surely the system design is universal, therefore the executive actions should also be? Collectively there must be enough collated historical HUMS data globally to allow the manufacturers to issue better guidelines and thresholds, even to the level of each helo's custom thresholds, or is the onus squarely on the operator's HUMS support team?
It seems crazy that SKY is only now developing an updated MGB to satisfy their Canadian military contract obligations versus having this capability for the S-92a units. Prevention is better than cure, especially when their 1 x10^9 extremely remote classification is gone....