Originally Posted by
Satcomm
Birimingham, I believe you are wrong with the above statement. They said that it was not a repeat of the issue that caused the 2012 ditchings. Which has nothing to do with the previous epicyclic failures.
Looking at
AH's statements I disagree, although the statement came after 4 days. After 2 days/48 hours they only lifted the grounding of the EC225LP. Their statement at May 3 includes:
Originally Posted by Airbus Helicopers
At this stage and based on the latest information, preliminary inspection of the main gearbox vertical shaft shows no link with the 2012 ditching events.
In addition to the SIN 3031-S-00 and based on the on-going root cause analysis process, precautionary measures are requested:
An airworthiness directive has been issued requesting measures newly defined in the EASB 53A058 and additional one-off maintenance checks.
The EASB 53A058 requests the verification of the correct installation of all MGB suspension bar attachments for the EC225LP. Similar measures will be published shortly for the EC725AP in a specific ASB.
EASB 53A058 also issued May 3 only calls for inspection of the suspension bars while
EASA AD 2016-0089-E calls for inspection of both suspension bars and gearbox (although only for metallic particles and HUMS data). Both are issued May 3, and this further implies that AH consider the suspension bars the only possible cause.
Then on May 27 they finally dare to say what they have implied (that they consider a suspension bar failure the only probable cause) all along with:
Originally Posted by Airbus Helicopers
According to Airbus Helicopters’ analysis, seven potential initial events have been retained to explain the main rotor detachment of LN-OJF. Out of these seven scenarios, only one – the failure of the attachment of a suspension bar – can be assessed as probable by Airbus Helicopters, based on the information available to date.
At this stage, the exact cause of this possible event is still unknown. Analysis of the helicopter’s maintenance history has just started and should provide a better understanding of the most likely causes.
In the second paragraph quoted they also use this statement to imply that the cause can be found in the maintenance history and thus isn't a design or manufacture issue.
I know that you didn't comment on what AH said May 27, but I think it makes it easier to "read between the lines" in their earlier actions.