I must say I am still, about a month in, struggling to make sense of all this.
AH came out 48 hours after the accident and effectively said this was not an epicyclic incident.
AH have the most experience with this machine. They know that a full investigation is ongoing which will, if it is in anyway possible, get to the bottom of this and publish a report. Following that report they know litigation will be inevitable.
So surely they must have access to the engineering equivalent of a smoking gun.
But, one month in nothing of that nature has been made public. There may well be solid reasons for this. But, even if that is the case the AIBN clearly think that the "doors they need to close" consist of more than tidying-up the evidence ahead of a final report.
The regulator reviews the advice of the manufacturer and AIBN and decides if a suspension can be relaxed. There is clearly a difference of opinion rather than emphasis between the manufacturer and the investigator.
The latest statement made by AH is carefully worded to say suspension failure is the only probable scenario but don't say why. That is understandable for legal reasons.
So what we can't know from the public statements is whether
(a) AIBN believe, given the 3 recent gear related accidents, epicyclic failure must be explicitly ruled out as the primary cause. That in order to do that 100% they need supporting mechanical and if possible metalurgical evidence from parts as yet unfound
or
(b) this is rather more than a door closing exercise and they don't buy the suspension strut theory.
So I am back to square one. Surely AH would not be releasing these statements unless they can stand them up.
Last edited by birmingham; 30th May 2016 at 10:17.