HC,
Normally I try to give you a gentle poke in the ribs over things you say....and usually do so to evoke some reaction from others to move the discussion along.
This time I think a firm kick in your backside is more what is called for.
From the UK CAA perspective, the accident that killed a number of people was not in their back yard so had less impact on any possible decision to ground the heli.
So I take you to mean that the UK CAA turns a completely blind eye to fatal crashes elsewhere in the World despite the very Type and Model Aircraft is being operated under their Authority within their jurisdiction.
If anyone was silly enough to believe that....he certainly does not pass any medical grounds for issuance of a Flying Medical. That is sheer idiocy.
The decision may have been a "political" decision but it certainly was never made for "safety" or "certification" reasons.....unless they concurred with the other Aviation Authorities investigating the accident and who had also certified the Aircraft.
If I were a CAA Inspector, I would take great exception to your comment as it implies the CAA does not consider Safety of Pasengers and Crew to be an important part of their function.
You want to revise what you said and perhaps pass along what you meant to say as surely what you said cannot be what you really meant to say....is it?
The EC 225 does meet the certification criteria, but there is clearly a design or manufacturing issue with a single component that has caused 2 ditchings in the UK CAA's back yard. That issue needs to be fixed, and then the heli will resume flights and be fully compliant with the spirit and letter of the certification rules.
If there is a design or manufacturing issue that causes two ditchings in a short time frame....how does the EC-225 then be considered meeting the Ceritication Criteria in your opinion? You cannot have your Kate and Edith you know.