Edited and re-typed from an usable computer instead of tablet:
Blakmax,
A quick Google search on rhc c0167 leads to R44-SL-49. Which confirms that these are the newer blades.
As you have stated recently on another thread:
Bond failures can be prevented.
There are really only two causes of bond failures:
bad production processes or bad design and certification processes.
You have also stated earlier that the Robinsons blades have a (very) short bonding overlap.
I understand that this does not neccessarily makes it a bad design but the design does not leave much buffer for flaws in the production proces?
The FAA should have looked at design fatigue life at type certification.
The FAA should also have examined RHC's production processes for its production certification (to multiply the type certified design)
I do not think that the FAA can be held liable but where would you recommend that the FAA should strenghten its competency?
Regards SLB
Last edited by Self loading bear; 8th Aug 2015 at 17:48.
Reason: lousy tablet