Outwest, thanks for clarifying, I did go back and look at older posts on the main S92 thread, there was a lot of discussion on ELS just after 491. Here's the link for those interested in refreshing their memory.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/163...ml#post4794848
The statement about the S61 ELS is on page 70 and was your own but I missed the other information wrt. the babbitt bearings and their magnesium gearbox fuel source. At least the S61 ELS comes on automatically and it has one.
I recall reading that the CH-148 ELS was meant to be similar to the EC225 i.e. glycol cooled and 30-minute true run-dry conditions i.e. complete loss of lube oil. For me that is what SAC should have put into the S92 from day 1.
The sad fact is that we're nearly 2 years on after 491 and SAC still haven't provided a solution to the MRGB issues and tried to play the "oh it still meets FAA requirements" card with its steel studs now. Well guess what, it doesn't, never did after Broome, should have been grounded until SAC fixed the problem. What about the premature oil filter false blockages requiring much more extensive filter inspections, which caused additional wear on the titanium studs? The root cause of the mounting feet cracks still hasn't been published, do SAC actually know yet?
I now wonder how long TC will give SAC to address these long-outstanding issues.
At least now thanks to this forum and the TSB report everybody is aware of the real issues.
Perhaps the oil companies should invest in the EC225 and return the S92s as "unfit for required use".
Safe flying
Max