Metallurgist confirmed that it was a failure from natural causes!
Metallurgist? An aviation matallurgist claiming 'natural causes'! No such thing in the aviation industry.
If an aircraft has been operated and maintained in compliance with the prescribed flight and maintenance manual directives and a dynamic component fails through no external influence then the failure, if strcutural or through fatigue, is the liability of the manufacturer.
That components become worn and fail is normal but, the manufacturer sets established parameters defined by time (either days or hours or both).
In
nouseforaname's situation (and in my view) there may be an obstacle in challenging MDH inasmuch as the airframe suffered a sudden stoppage and which the manufacture will always cite as being an 'out' for them because (and this is understandable) they cannot accept liability for the consequences of a situation in which the integrity of dynamic components (more vulnerable) are influenced by forces which occur while everything is running.
However,
nouseforaname's mechanic should still contact MDH but the only way they could accept liability is if it can be demonstrated that there was a fault in the manufacture of the cog.
The answer for operators is of course HUMS which is on the bigger ships.
HM