Originally Posted by
roundwego
The two Safety Information Notices regarding this accident issued by Airbus was distributed to operators of 332's and 225's, military and civil.
The first one carries no formal instruction to ground the aircraft. All it does is inform readers of the accident and "allies" Airbus with the decision to put all commercial 225 flights on hold. This cannot be construed as a technical grounding of the aircraft by Airbus.
The second SIN really says nothing more of any significance. My interpretation of it is that Airbus have so far found nothing which gives them any reason to suspend the Type Certificate of the aircraft for technical reasons but they "continue to stand by the decision of the Norwegian and UK authorities to put commercial EC225 flights on hold"
Over the last five years or so, there has been a subtle change in the oil and gas industry to move towards the military practice of grounding an aircraft type after an unexplained accident until such time the cause has been established and "cured". Civilian practice had always been (and still is in the fixed wing world) not to ground an aircraft until evidence has been found that there is an intrinsic airworthiness defect which is likely to affect other serial numbers of the same product.
Imagine the chaos in the air travel industry if Boing 737s were all grounded every time there was a fatal accident involving that type. It is only because of the high profile of the North Sea that the 225's have been grounded. Had this tragic accident happened to a EC 725 (a military version of the EC225) in Outer Mongolia, the North Sea 225s would still be flying.
Another consideration to take into account is the Contract conditions between the helicopter operator and the Oil & Gas customers. I suspect that if there is a mandatory grounding of the helicopter, the Customer may still be required to continue to pay any monthly standing charge. It is therefore in the helicopter operators' interest to persuade their aviation authority to ground the aircraft under these circumstances before the Customer has a chance to suspend the contract.
Irrespective of my thoughts on grounding protocols described above, my innermost thoughts are with the families of the deceased and those in the industry who have to deal with and live through the aftermath of this tragic accident. Very difficult times for you all.
The two aviation authorities need to follow a formal process and to back up their statements with technical evidence. This takes time. What Airbus seem to be saying is that addional data gathered after the crash points to the fact that it is not a repeat of earlier incidents and that this helicopter is safe to fly. They must be feel that the Norwegian and UK authorities will ultimately reach the same conclusion. It would be a very bold statement to put out if they didn't believe they knew the precise cause of the accident.