Originally Posted by
birmingham
alby3z Thank you very useful background.
lynnx It will be interesting to see whether something to do with the (apparently) missing suspension bar assembly is a symptom or a causal factor. I think that AH's necessarily cryptic (for legal and liability reasons) early statement that the Puma's are safe to fly, led many to infer that there was an obvious primary cause (and one that differed from G-REDL). If the primary cause was that obvious and we could be assured that the risk could be mitigated by the recommended AH precautions, then I think the type would have been cleared to restart flying. The only reason I can think of, for that not being the case, is that the AIBN do not yet believe they have enough evidence to convince a shocked and fearful user base that the likely cause is sufficiently understood at this stage of the investigation. Given the frequency of recent tragedies their caution is understandable. Of course the one fact we do know for certain is that we have experienced another catastrophic structural failure. Finding the primary cause is only one part of the picture when it comes to determining how we go forward with NS helicopter shuttles.
Birmingham, Lynnx, the fact is that older aircrafts are certified to older FAR amendment. This is perfectly admitted, but it may happen that older acceptable means of compliance (eg. Analysis instead of exp tests) are superseded by more stringent requirements.
So, the newer the better, should be in terms of safety.