Outwest,
"Are you on drugs man???"
It's not me, it's the FAA. So lighten up.
"FAR 29.927.-
[(c) Lubrication system failure. For lubrication systems required for proper operation of rotor drive systems, the following apply:
(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flightcrew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant."
Now I've been involved in a couple of MRGB design qualifications. And there is no way to show by (FMEA) analysis and/or with a qual test validation, that a typical single-fault-tolerant lube system failure can be shown to be an "extremely remote" event. Unless the S-92 MRGB has two totally isolated, independent, and functionally redundant lube systems (which it doesn't), then it must show by qual test that it has a 30 minute loss-of-lube capability, according to FAR 29. Not my requirements, it's the FAA's.
Plus, even though I'm obviously not intimately familiar with the S-92 MRGB design itself, I do understand that it is based on the UH-60 design which does have a firm requirement for a loss-of-lube condition per MIL-T-5955:
"G.6.9 Lubrication. It shall be demonstrated, either analytically or by
testing, that lubrication is suitable for all steady-state operational attitudes
with respect to gravity."
So what do you say now?