@aheoe26104: Sorry; I’m allowed to impute to you that you have never been a member of an investigation board. You are making prejudicial comments and you haven’t understood or even haven’t read the representational thread?
The case 'LN-OJF' is too serious and the dignity of the fatilities is too invioable to be discounted by hollow and unprofessional comments instead of substantial arguments and facts!
AW009,
1) I have been involved in 2 investigations in my 34 years experience as a pilot.
2) No prejudice here, I am an big French helicopter fan, most of my experience is on Alouettes III, Puma C, H, L, L1 and 225 - my concern is about the notion that it is acceptable for a helicopter to shed it's main rotor even if it is over a period of 35 years. I have to look my passengers in the eye and assure them that they will not experience the dreadful free fall in a helicopter without it's main rotor.
3) Your comments regarding my understanding of the situation or my reading does not deserve a reply.
4) Fatalities - it is the main reason for my comments, I do not want to see this happen again and from my reading and understanding, all I am seeing, is that positive rectification has not been made and that if we indeed do not show sufficient respect for the deceased, they may have died in vain and their lives will not be dignified by us as the flag bearers of flight safety.
5) "hollow and unprofessional comments instead of substantial arguments and facts!" What do you read in the previous 40 something of pages? Facts? No, we are (supposed) to wait for the AAIB to reach its conclusions and come with recommendations, not try to defend the Puma. That is not our job. The manufacturer or owners can do that, my professional responsibility is first to my passengers and to myself. BTW, all the things I posted are from air accident investigation board findings, so if you would like to go back and tell those they have their facts wrong or unsubstantiated, well be my guest.