Yippee! All 139 systems will always work as advertised - guess I can cancel all our Sim slots!
Sorry Geoff but the new age Safety Culturists keep telling me that because I've done something safely for thirty years doesn't mean I will be able to do it safely today.
So the fact it hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it won't.
A perfect design isn't the end of the story, it has to be manufactured, checked and installed. We are all aware of AW Quality Control..
Aviation is littered with accidents/events caused by unforeseen circumstances or things that "just can't happen" - Airbus Computer progamming thro to Little Mexican Lady miswiring B407 FADECs.
I too would love to know exactly what modelling/flight testing was used to show the 139's reaction to float inflation at 145kts.
Personally I think the potentially dangerous time is when you arm the floats and I either do this on the ground or reduce speed briefly while arming airborne. I still expect it to go Bang being an old Wessex man!
I guess we should be grateful AW's intentions are very clear in the Flight Manual instead of that statement of old - "Floats should not be Armed above....Kts". Manufacturers could never decide whether they meant the Float switch should not be
moved to the Armed position or should not
remain in the Armed position.