SAS, I don't know too much about the 76 blade, it is a type I have never flown and the event occured on a base I have never operated from. However I believe that the manufacturer's recommendations were followed to the letter. You could argue that Bristow should have known better than Sikorsky about how to deal with damaged parts, but I think that is unrealistic. In accordance with the MM, the part was returned to the Sikorsky facility, who had full knowledge about the nature of the damage, they as the experts in the field, did what they considered necessary to return the part to service. What you are saying is something along the lines of "anytime a helicopter develops a defect, it should be thrown away and a new one put into service. Everytime a component reaches its overhaul life, it should be thrown away and not overhauled." Not terribly practical.
Yes, with hindsight everyone now realises the potential danger of those actions, but before the event, everybody (operator, manufacturer, regulator) though they were doing the right thing and not cutting any corners.
The true cause of that accident was the latent manufacturing defect in the blade. As witnessed by the fact that all the AAIB's recommendations were aimed at the manufacturer, none at the operator.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 27th Aug 2013 at 13:31.