Kawijet, REDL was an AS332L2 not a H225. My point is, legally this is NOT a repeat of anything that has ever happened to the H225.
For the statement time lines. AH made its initial statement about being allied while their expert team was on route to Norway. Given the fact that there is a history with the lower section of the 225 (and 225 only) MGB, this was probably a wise thing to do. 48 hours later, travel time and wreckage recovery, they must have seen something to be certain that it was not a repeat of again the above MGB issue. This is when they issued the so called bold statement of it being safe for flight. I believe they also stated at or around this time that this was not a repeat of the issue that cause the "2012 ditchings". No mention of the possibility of it being a similar issue of the 2009 AS332L2 Epi failure.
I do agree that I have made at least one incorrect statement in my last post. When I said this was a "repeat" of REDL. A repeat would be the same type of aircraft with the same part number main gearbox. Neither of which are the case. Again, this will NOT be a repeat of anything that ever happen to the 225.
As someone else mentioned earlier after the AirEgypt crash, is Airbus now suppose to ground the entire fleet worldwide of every A3XX series of aircraft because there was an unexplained accident. How many of the people going off shore today on a S92 got to their heliport via an A3xx series of aircraft and never questioned that.
Last edited by Satcomm; 21st May 2016 at 12:22.