Pitts, as usual I don't think you quite understand what you are talking about. Let's put the shoe on the other foot and ask you what you think should happen?
Well that didn't take long to get the "you're a git, know nothing, etc,etc"..
When someone asks a question I don't know how it suggest to you they know anything! I just asked what the previous action was if you got a MOD45 alarm. I hope the EC
PR machine is a little more able to put the message across to people.
You know you hammer people for reading the material that actually EC themselves have put out there and then say don't ask questions and there is more information out there etc.. So what can you do!?
What would I do?
Firstly it depends which hat I had on.
If I was Eurocopter I'd wait the year until I had a proper fix in place. I'm not sure who is pushing to fly the 225 as it seems operators have coped for the last 9 months and as I said it would seem Bristow won't fly anyway until near the end of the year.
Whilst the chances are slim to none the risk is massive and if I have changed the treatment of MOD45 alarm in order to fly again then frankly it would be the end.
If I was the operator I'd wait. Take Bristow and their zero accident policy, how would they explain that to their stock holders, management, employees and customers were anything to happen.
If I was the customer I'd wait for the same reason as the operator.
If I was a passenger I'll do what my boss tells me, but I'd be asking questions like "have you changed the treatment of the MOD45 alarm..."
Whilst its a thorn and easy to call people names in the last year the company you are asking everyone to trust "this time" has had two accidents, the second after the first solution wasn't correct. You've had a problem with wiring and EMLUB was it / wasn't it working. Now the EMLUB doesn't fully work. You've had a shaft re-design that goodness knows who signed off on it as it failed after 160ish hours and yet the problems were the same for that as the prior shaft that ran almost 4000hrs. You have a HUMS system that if you look at the data in the existing AAIB reports has had threshold changes yet this is the same system that we all should believe is cock on this time and you have this constant suggestion that the Super Puma has never had an oil loss in its gearbox - despite a specific report on this type of subject written for EASA with Super Puma G-REDL inside.
What part of that is scare mongering and what part of that is fact?