Codger:
I don't know why the CofA hasn't been pulled or if it should be pulled... But if you think that any manufacturer of aircraft puts stuff out there for us to drive knowing that there's something in there that will kill us then that's a whole other deal.
Nah, that's not what I was getting at.
1) FAR Part 29.927 says that main transmissions of helicopters certified under this part must have a 30-minute operational capability after "loss of lubricant."
2) Sikorsky's S-92 main transmission fails to meet that requirement in 2002.
3) FAR 29.927 allows that "unless such failures are extremely remote," then you don't have to have the 30-minute capability.
4) Sikorsky convinces the FAA that the transmission oil cooler and its associated lines are the *only* area that could result in a leak and loss of lubricant.
5) FAA buys off on SAC's bogus bypass system "workaround."
6) Subsequent events demonstrate that Sikorsky's initial contention that the oil cooler and lines were the *only* source of a leak were, well, inaccurate.
7) Ergo, the S-92 main transmission admittedly does not meet either the letter or spirit of FAR 29.927, despite the workaround.
Seems pretty simple to me. If an aircraft...any aircraft...so blatantly fails to meet its design certification criteria, then shouldn't its Certificate of Airworthiness be...you know...um...
revoked?
I'm just sayin'.
Somewhere there is a large Greek man walking around, occasionally flinching uncontrollably at the memory of the bullet he dodged.