Vie sans frontieres;
Can I assume that you don’t have any experience with the mentioned hoist system…?
It would be unfair to think that anybody involved in hoist operations would focus on cost before safety.
In your post you seem to imply that simply because the proposal concerns AIRWORTHINESS it is wrongful to have objections to it. But if it was as simple as that, there would be no need for EASA to send out a Proposal AD, wouldn’t you think..?
Imagine a Proposal AD for your helicopter type setting the TBO for the tail rotor blades to 20 flight hours, based on two isolated incidents where the probable cause was operations outside of the approved flight envelope and/or failure to perform maintenance activities correctly.
Would you object..?
And to answer your question; yes, all our crew members - including pilots - do get hoisted on a regular basis.
If you have experience with the hoist I would rather that we debate whether stricter tests and inspection scenarios will actually help increase safety. Especially when considering that in at least one of the mentioned incidents the wear on the overload clutch was probably cause by incorrect maintenance...
Fly safe,
RD