HC,
A little bit harsh - particularly as Bristow has been part of the ongoing improvement project with GE. It proceeds slowly (more slowly than we would prefer) but that is a function, not of money, but of the scarcity of personnel to 'manage' and 'work' on these research and development systems. How much return do you think that GE (or others) could make on the sale of any such system?
Remember the dream with this particular development system, that it could sit as an anomaly detection tool above any HUMS (or any other data rich) system and provide a uniform interface.
Before this accident, there was no imperative to speed up development in any area. Let us see what the AAIB/EC/GE analysis of the HUMS data provides in this case - it might result in a clear focus that will provide an acceleration and concentration of effort. The recommendations might well be in the HF area but, until we see the report, we cannot possibly know.
maxwelg2,
It's OK to make these statements but you need to understand that there are dangers associated with physical intervention - you need to remember what brought you into this forum in the first place. There is need for interpretation in all but the simplest systems; we need all the tools in the toolkit and all appropriately utilised (as the Sultan previously indicated in his remarks about mag-plugs) but we also need qualified personnel.
Some years ago (at the last HHMAG meeting attended), the FAA indicated that they intended to spend several millions on HUMS implementation; I for one have not yet seen the fruit of that investment. Has anyone else?
Jim