500e
Your analysis is completely wrong. The point they were making was a properly designed quill with robust bearings can survive extended operations with reduced/no lubrication. It took one year before the take action level was reached, not that it is flying one year above the highest alert level. Anyone familiar with HUMS knows extremely minor damage can light off lower alerts that have no impact on safety and even the highest are set with significant margin.
The point is Sikorsky screwed up and choose a tail rotor output quill bearing configuration which fails in 12 minutes after loss of lube. This resulted in gears moving and chewing themselves to pieces. The pathetic part was that the failure on the 92 was exactly what was seen in the failed oil out demonstrations. It was loss of tail rotor drive that caused the crash, there was no loss of rotor drive.
Another post showed that Bell presented an AHS paper where the Bell 429 main transmission, in a realistic loss of lube test, ran four hours after the main oil volume was lost in a similar way as the 429. These tests were conducted a minimum continue flight torque up to Max cont power. Bell knows how to design transmissions.
The Sultan