Originally Posted by
Pittsextra
OK but when the meat of the analysis is available for all and sundry via the AAIB how does the CAA steam roller things?
Surely anyone acting for the CAA just points to the manufacturer and says they were advised appropriately? Going further with regards to best practice how do we view the in flight data that forms part of the interim fix for EC225 in terms of being retained going forwards?
The AAIB are always careful not to attribute blame. Their remit is to find out what happened and why, not to try to apportion blame.
The manufacturer does not require hums use at all - it is a bolt-on extra as far as they are concerned. The requirement for hums came originally from the industry, adopted by CAA and finally adopted rather weakly by EASA. If you look at the document setting out how to use HUMS etc - CAA's CAP753 - it is rather weak in some areas, certainly in the area about data download frequency.
Regarding your last sentence, sorry I am unable to comment or answer any sentences that includes the phrase "going forwards" because my mind becomes bogged down with the other possibilities such as "going backwards" or "going sideways". If you would like to resubmit your query using English, I will try to respond to it.