Major question to me is whether Sikorsky inspected/repaired the subject blade and returned it to Bristow as "serviceable" and thus liability would fall on the manufacturer.......or was the blade either not sent to Sikorsky and/or the blade was returned without being certified as being "serviceable" by Sikorsky which would mean liability would then fall upon Bristow.
The real question is why an operator would want to continue using main rotor blades (a somewhat important part of a helicopter) after being struck by lightning. Particularly after the amount of damage aircraft G-BF incurred as a result of the lightning strike incident. Any reasonable person, having read of the damage and the number of components scrapped after the strike......would have serious misgivings about continuing to use the main rotor blades.
I cannot wait to hear how the liability issue is resolved.......it is very plain that someone will carry the bucket on this one. Reckon there is any finger pointing going on between Bristow and Sikorsky regarding this ?
One would think Sikorsky's smart move would have been to sell Bristow four new blades and refuse to certify the subject blades for continued flight.
I wonder if Bristow provided Sikorsky with a complete description of the damage to the aircraft as background information upon which to consider the inspections that would be required.
I can bet you doughnuts to dog droppings, you hold the stakes in your mouth, that Sikorsky just got out of the lightning strike inspection business for rotor blades!