zorab - what I don't understand in recent posts is the push back when people merely seek clarity or more timely actions, especially since in your last post to me was to play semantics over the a point of the fuel. Now perhaps I misunderstand the motive for this but I read that as you making the point that the pilot may have played less of a role in the accident? (a similar point that Silsoe was trying to make.)
Otherwise isn't it just a similar incident to that which befell G-CIAS or G-BDNP? i.e the AAIB conclude with some comment that includes the line "the mismanagement of the aircrafts fuel system...??"
I'm just surprised before everyone cries out for data recording of all and sundry (which as we have seen from North Sea incidents has its own particular holes) and yet we can't be comfortable with running more frank assessments earlier in the process when it would seem pretty obvious where things are leading.
For example when you get this:-
Hopefully this data analysis may give an indication as to how the ac came to be configured as it was in the moments prior to the incident. Your simple uninformed and rushed conclusion of 'it simply ran out of fuel' is not only factually incorrect, it is also highly disrespectful to not only all those involved in the investigation, but to all that died that night.
The families need the answers and more importantly, the correct answers, no matter how long that may take. Shame on you Pittsextra.
and then this:-
The EC135 remains a 3rd generation helicopter with a modern & comprehensive warning suite of imminent or potential failures. As someone who flies them, and who daily reviews reactions in the event of failures and, possibly more importantly, systems knowledge & understanding, I have full confidence that the belt & braces warning systems will provide me with enough information to greatly assist a keep-us-alive decision. .
or
only if prompted by people who are too ignorant or lazy to explain the difference between "engines being starved of fuel", which appears to have been the case, and "the aircraft/airframe running out of fuel", which was patently not the case. The remaining fuel was enough to get back back to base (albeit below MLA), but was reported as not being in a tank from which it could reach the engines, and it's the reasoning & sequence that led to it that is testing the AAIB, I'd suggest
these people seem to be living in denial.