I have had a couple of PMs calling for me to explain my comments in relation to the S92 and they have caused meto reflect.
Firstly, I in no why implied that Nick or JD had anything to do with the s92 demise.
What I am implying, and stand by, is the possibility that the crew were not in full possession of the facts which caused them to continue flying when their checklist said land IMMEDIATLEY.
The S92 RFM calls for an immediate landing when Oil Px hits zero. That does not mean the MGB will explode IMMEDIATLEY. It clearly must run dry for some period of time to allow for the landing. However, the limits are clearly stated.
If the P1 was fully aware of the nature of this limit, and the likely outcome if ignored, he would surely of ditched. After the events there was strong intimation that crews believed that MGB would run dry.
In this case, decaying NR limits. The limits are clearly stated in the RFM. However, this does not mean that one percent below that limit the NR is unrecoverable. There is a safety margin. However, for us pilots there is only ne limit applicable.
Now when JD choose to call Peters post wrong, due tothe conservative values Peter quoted, JD choose to expose us to the safety limit. This has the potential to perpetuate the misbelief that NR can be safely reduced below the RFM limit.
My post harsh and uncompromising but I hope those of you who view safety asi do will see the reason behind this.
Once again I apologies if I gave the impression that ZJD was responsible or the 92. That was not my intent.
DB