Satcomm,
I take your point and you do raise some good points.
But things still do not add up. They never said it is similar to G-REDL failure, but, they must be saying that it IS NOT the same, otherwise, how on earth can they state that it is "Safe to fly" without a definate cause or in depth analysis of the epicyclic gears in this case?? How many other airframes are waiting to spit out the rotor mast if it was indeed another planetary gear failure!?
I am aware they are 2 different models yes. However, In reality they are not so different - the 225 being an "upgraded" version of pretty much the same design. And I know this is the first 225 accident of this kind. But for that reason it baffles me even more as to why they would give the green light to fly them. If it is the first of its kind then surely it needs a definite cause before "safe to fly" is stated! Not 2 days of a check over....
Basing their "safe to fly" criteria on a hunch is not good enough (and I am sure they had more evidence than just a hunch!). It doesn't make sense unless they are sure it is NOT an epicyclic failure. That is what I am saying here.
Heres a very flippant recap of their statement to try and emphasize the point:
"We will ground the helicopters following this catastrophic accident. This is not the same gearbox trouble that caused the ditchings. After 48 hours we have now discovered it is safe to fly our helicopters. PS. Better just check your suspension bars and let us know how they are...."
Why would they do that? They are pretty much indicating suspension bar failure here.
They MUST know something we dont and be pretty sure that the investigation will make the same finding.
Again - just my view point on it.