13 Snoopy
I don't have to convince you of the theory, mate! Read the AD:
However, airworthiness cannot be assured long-term by reliance on continued repetitive inspections.
Tell me what part of my "theory" isn't supported by the FAA statement?
Even NASA agrees with my proposition that hydration drives bonds failures:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0080040188.pdf
Now before you start accusing me of Robbie bashing, I assure you that this problem exists for a lot of other manufacturers both in rotary and fixed wing. The reason that RHC has been bitten more than others is that their design involves an exceptionally short overlap length 0.4in for R22 and 0.5 in for R44. Any degradation at all is going to be exacerbated by the fact that there is negligible reserve strength in such short bonds.
If you really want to get into a technical discussion in an attempt to debunk my "theory", bring it on!
Kindest regards
Blakmax