OMB - as you say, trying to pick on an individual operator as having better or worse maintenance procedures than another is dangerous ground, however overall competancy aside, in the 3 accident reports (interim in the case of the CHC one) there were specific areas where the operator had fallen short of the best practice used by other operators. There is no point in denying that as it makes your credibility seem wanting to observers such as our passengers.
In the case of the L2, the epicyclic was not checked as it should have been following the chip. In the case of the CHC 225, whilst everyone else was reviewing HUMS data prior to despatch (not because it was mandatory, but because it was best practice) CHC didn't and the ditching resulted.
Even in the case of the May ditching, I am told (although this is of course hearsay) that we would have had a look at the oil pump area by dropping the sump prior to despatch.
Therefore whilst overall maintanance standards are generally the same, it only takes one error or sub-optimal practice to allow a preventable accident to occur.
Contributory to these accidents was not "bad luck" but some specific maintenance standard issues, even though in general the companies concerned have good standards.
Edited to say that I would of course agree that the main problem lies with EC's shaft, not the operators. However it is the operators' job to catch EC's mistakes before they become an accident.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 14th Nov 2012 at 11:37.