Originally Posted by
birmingham
Unfortunately it is now looking very unlikely this machine will survive, at least offshore.
If it is another epicyclic then the game is effectively over and everyone will start the slow or not so slow conversion to other types.
If it is (as they clearly expect) the suspension bar, maintenance related or not. then they will have to explain to an already spooked workforce why the failure of a single item; bar, bolt, or worse missing nappy pin would result in the destruction of the entire structural integrity of the machine.
Now sure, there are many single points of failure on a helicopter- we know that. Many are completely unavoidable.
But could the design of the sus bar assembly have redundancy built in? Other types have at least some. If so why didn't it?
The public will see it this way whatever we think.
The puma in all its types has been around a long while
Recently 5 accidents 7 years 3 fatal 33 dead. All in the NS. 1970s levels of fatal accidents. Regularly grounded, rapid redesigns.
A series of "extremely improbable
" events will "extremely probably" mean the end of the road this time.
Maybe I am wrong, but even If I am I would certainly wager we will never see another AH helicopter with a zero redundancy three bar mrh suspension arrangement.
Birmingham, keep in mind that it could be possible that integrity of the h/c is satisfied with a single point failure in certain flight condition(e.g. Forward flight at 140kts) but not in another (e.g. Descent at certain fpm). From a certification point of view, depending on the hazard assessment, it has to be proven that in certain conditions (which ones I can't figure out) the safety is guaranteed.