Kawijet you may well be correct here. Others have been questioning my post where I said Airbus must surely have more information than they have released to be sure of their comment that the aircraft is safe to fly. They obviously can't speculate as to the cause, but a safe to fly providing you check message must mean they are very confident not only that the failure occurred somewhere other than the second planetary stage, but that it was a failure somehow related to the missing lift bar. This would add even more weight as to why the AH statement is circumspect to the point of confusion. If they are pretty sure of the cause (and given what they have said I hope they are for their sake) they dare not be specific as the investigation will review the design, manufacture and maintenance of the components associated with this. It also helps understand why they have kept the ban in place. Although AH can express confidence in their product the AIBN must consider all the parties and if (and I stress if) it is a suspension bar issue they will have to try and conclude why the accident occurred and all the factors associated with it i.e.
1. Was maintenance correctly carried out (CHC)
2. Did it fail due to a manufacturing error (AH/Sub contractors)
3. Was the design in any way culpable (AH)
Also these things rarely will have a single cause.
They are going to have to make a big statement and some of the evidence hasn't even been recovered.
Whatever the report says It will specify the likely cause and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. The worry for AH is that some of the customers are convinced (rationally or irrationally) that the best way to prevent a recurrence is to fly on other helicopters.