Originally Posted by
donut king
Why would a manufacturer ground their type without proof of a design/ manufacturing failure?
Airbus is standing behind their product until it's proven, possibly, to be defective.....imho
In most cases I would agree. This one is different, Airbus has G-REDL a previous gearbox event. Combined with the fact that gearbox parts are still missing now and being searched for would make me assume (IMO) that they would hold off approving flight. The fact they released the letter suggests they found physical evidence that is not in the wreckage solely. Whatever they found is not in the missing wreckage, that's a given. And they seem to have decided it won't change their opinion on present flight safety when all the wreckage is finally recovered, again IMO.
I see 3 locations, recovered wreckage, missing wreckage, and gear in maintenance facilities. Recovered wreckage is incomplete, that alone may not answer all the questions. Missing wreckage may help to solve the puzzle but they don't have it. There is only one conclusion I can see logically . . . they found something outside of the wreckage evidence that made them issue this advisory that the 225 is safe to fly. I don't buy the theory that it is all
PR spin to keep business as usual. My 2 cents, and worth as much.