js0287
This site was where the S-92's MGB weakness was first aired and that was
before the accident.
You might regard the contributions here as a sound prediction of the S-92's first fatal accident. The misleading claims about the tests that were done with the cooler bypass were the contributions that should have been ignored. - just like a number of marketing presentations that hyped the "latest standards" as a competative advantage.
I think Sox6's ceiling comment really highlights that if Sikorsky wasnt to defend themselves with the excuse that the pilots should have ditched as soon as they got the low oil warning, it shold be possible to do that in the certified flight envelope.
HC
Even if Sikorsky had not been so agressive in their market, would you agree that as FAR29 calls for a 30 minutes loss of lube system test, that the industry would have expected that to either have been done with the worst credible failure or at least an Equivalent Safety Finding raised? Instead the compromise made was no revealed by Sikorsky or FAA.
Sikorsky certainly didn't use the Broome event as a trigger to highlight their weakness to pilots. In fact they were busy issuing advisories on reasons not to land immediately after MGB failure indications and even reiterated those after the Cougar accident prompring this from EASA:
EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool
The whole business of 'Extremely Remote' has been clarified in AC29 to remove the loophole Sikorsky used. While that AC29 came out after S-92 circulation it was drafted, with industry, before the certification....
JohnD
How much better than lying do you think promoting misleading information on a safety issue is while marketing an aircraft?