"I don't care that I am not a licenced engineer, I haven't done the HUMS course, I have no experience of looking at HUMS graphs, but nevertheless I disagree with your assessment and refuse to fly the aircraft"?
HC, I believe that the key point is that HUMS interpretations should be made "user-friendly" either via either the new GE software or yet another new diagnostic tool that's not even invented yet. Time is of the essence, I hope your upcoming symposium moves this issue forward.
Using the available tools to maximum advantage is the only way to move this technology forward.
Everybody from the HUMS engineer to the pilot to the PAX should have confidence that the condition monitoring and preventative maintenance schedules are as good as they can be within our current technological (and budgetary) limits. If this means being able to present the data in laymans terms/with minimal additional training then so be it.
Post-diagnosis is key to preventing future occurrences. My current perception is that HUMS is not user-friendly enough to be confidently used and does not have a universal application structure, hence differing interpretations of the data sets. Until that is resolved I'd rather trust the invasive inspections via boroscope and increased inspection frequency on critical items as/where required.