Skyrangerpro wrote:
P23: "When the manufacturer tested the fuel sensors that were returned from the worldwide fleet, for repair, it found about 70% had no fault."
Well hello. Did nobody think to question that? Isn't that a bit odd, your customers send in alleged faulty components and 7/10 have no fault! Footprints in the snow, ice that has evaporated are the analogies that come to mind. The evidence has long since left the scene. I would be thinking, 'well unless my customers are crazy' there is something intangible going on here, that warrants further investigation in the field.
I'm glad you noticed that too. As I recall Eurocopter (as they were at the time) said,
The issue, discovered by Bond Air Services, appears to be that the probes are indicating a fuel level higher than actual. Investigations showed that the incorrect signals that the probes transmit to the indicator may also inhibit the amber “fuel caution” light. Tests confirmed the problem starts with water contamination. As of December 23 (2013), 264 sensors had been tested. Of those, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterward, while two failed and needed to be replaced. Meanwhile, the “low fuel” warning system is independent and remains reliable, Eurocopter said.
EC135 Faces Fuel Sensor Fault | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News
That means twelve sensors which should have been working were not, because they were contaminated with something.
Pozidrive,
None of the protocols I've ever read prohibit recovery of casualties, even if that means disturbing wreckage/evidence.
My interpretation of the report was that the accident scene was so unstable due to the danger of the wreckage collapsing into the Clutha basement, that it was not safe to extract the injured person until the basement ceiling had been shored up.