Fatal reality checks are a bitch.
Amen, Codger. Amen.
But see, guys like me...I'm just a dumb ol' pilot. I don't know what could leak on an S-92 and what could not. I rely on the engineers to design the thing right. Then I rely on the regulatory agencies to verify that it's been designed right before they certify it. Then I rely on the assembly people to build it right. Finally, I rely on the mechanics to maintain it right. (Everyone, in turn, relies on me to fly it right.) That's a whole lot of relying going on.
But I'll say this: I've worked on enough cars and motorcycles in my life to know...to KNOW without a doubt...that any accessory that is bolted to an engine (or in this case a transmission) can leak at the parting surface. And anyone who's ever had the waterpump in their car fail knows that fluid can leak out around a shaft. For the latter, the analogy I'm thinking of is where the tail rotor driveshaft goes into the transmission. Is it
impossible for oil to leak out there (although it must be said that this hasn't happened yet on an S-92)? Or is it just "highly unlikely given the current state of seal technology and our general design?"
Apparently, SAC told the FAA that the oil cooler and the lines to it were the only places that transmission oil could leak out of, and the FAA concurred.
The question has been asked, and was glossed-over. But it's a good one: In light of all of the above, how does the S-92 still maintain its airworthiness certificate? Why has it not been revoked?