The vexed issue is that if any manufacturer actually knew that even though they demonstrably complied with the regulatory requirements but also were aware that these requirements produced principal structural elements that had a demonstrated history where they failed to maintain continuing airworthiness and that the risk factors were made aware in published scientific papers, and even though they were aware of the deficiencies in ongoing airworthiness of their structures they continued to issue airworthiness directives which ignored the available evidence of the risks to airworthiness and were aware that their ADs failed to address the issues which constituted the risk, is the defence of "we complied with the regulations" sufficient to defend against legal action? I doubt it.
Exactly what I was driving at. They are wilfully ignoring the evidence you have so slearly put in the public domain over the years. The product is not consistently durable.
you know that,
We, the great unwashed know that,
the manufacturers know that, but they and their customers, the Heli- builders, collude to hide behind the worthless extortion -racket that is it's certificate of airworthiness.
The Certification process is unfit for purpose. the end -user does not expect to pay for a Certified product which will only last safely until the guarantee expires.
If these were motorcar brakes....there'd be an enormous outcry and a worldwide recall...For industrial misconduct of this nature, read "unsafe at any speed" by Ralph Nader...he was responsible for uncovering that one manufacturer
KNEW their product was unsafe but thought that it would be cheaper to pay out on successful court cases against them.
Time for a class action against the manufacturers/distributors of these unfit components?