Originally Posted by
letmein
Airbus Helicopters has, almost since day one, pointed their finger directly at a suspension bar mounting issue. All restrictions were lifted 48 hrs after incident. EASB 53A058 (3 May 2016) directives are focused on mounting issues only. Fact is, Airbus Helicopters is the expert and authority on the ec225 (and 332/L2).
Pressure must be mounting for the AIBN to provide some evidence to support their implied thesis, that accident's root cause is somehow related to manufacturing or design. No evidence provided thus far. Not even a teaser. Again - none.
It is also odd that the AIBN seems to be dancing around the suspension bar problematics:
The problem is, if the investigation
- Where is the front suspension bar, is it missing?
- Where is the lower front mounting bolt and safety pins, are they missing?
- What is the state of the lower front mounting bracket? undamaged, damaged, missing?
- Is damage of the suspension bars and brackets consistent with REDL? or is there a clear difference?
The AIBN don't ground aircraft, that rests with regulators, Norwegian CAA, UK CAA, EASA etc. National authorities within EASA can, if the feel the action is justified, ground an aircraft type regardless of what EASA decides.
I would suggest that the grounding orders are in place as a result of what is know about the accident, rotor seperation etc and previous events on the 225 and 332L2. regardless of AH's product knowledge they can only advise the investigators and regulators. AH can say what they want but at the end of the day they have to convince the regulators that there is a good enough case to "un-ground" the fleet