I contend that to maintain flight safety it may be prudent to manage the reduced strength by flight and weight restrictions to prevent bond failures, rather than inspecting for disbonds after they occur hoping that they are captured before they reach critical size and limiting the inspections to specific locations.
The real solution is to correct the production deficiencies and re-issue the components.
If I may be so bold, blakmax, I'd say the above is the essential idea that needs to be sold to Agusta. And I do mean sold.
One
might surmise that the OEM will not voluntarily place flight and weight restrictions on the aircraft without what they believe to be proof. A prudent operator would probably make this surmise.
If the OEM believe that inspection and repair are sufficient to maintain current operating limits, they will do that, as inspection and repair are far quicker and have less impact on the
top line than revamping the production and quality processes and thereafter reissuing components.
However, if the OEM believes that regulatory authorities and/or customers will begin to restrict the operating envelope, that in turn reduces the value of the aircraft.
Only when the OEM sees that a correction of production deficiencies translates directly into positive impacts upon the
bottom line will they do anything about it.
Essentially, one might conclude that your message needs to get out effectively to someone in a production decision-making capacity or higher at Agusta.