Originally Posted by
Satcomm
By the number of fear mongering post, you guys/gals must be just petrified to sit in the back of any helicopter while being transported offshore (if you even go offshore). Based on a rash of your posts I definitely know you are not pilots or engineers ... At least I hope not, then we would truly have something to fear.
I've stated before that I am not a party to this in any way, I don't work in the NS and I don't fly any helicopter on a regular basis. I do have experience with mechanics and metal in general in the world of the deadly (not aviation).
I'm not afraid of flying neither fixed wing nor rotary, and I don't have a "fear agenda" her at all. I'm surprised that you think so, what I've posted here is first and foremost translations of information available in Norwegian. Except for that I'm primarly an observer to the discussion, but I reply when being addressed.
That said, I did sum up AH's statements as a reply to "they haven't really said it is the suspension bars" as I think they consistently let it shine through that they dismiss anything else. What I'm wondering on that is what their motivation for this is, if they know something they can't or won't share or if they just want to "guide" public opinion. If the latest I reported from the Norwegian newspapers is true, it's probably the former.
Originally Posted by
Satcomm
It's just a 825 hour torque check!! If it was thought to be a design flaw where the bolts and securing "nuts" (nadar) underneath could not maintain adequate torque for some unknown reason then something would be done about it. Do you know how many checks take place within a 825 period on any helicopter ? ... A lot of them being torque checks! Would be a very scary world if we did not have torque checks and inspections. Cant remember the interval for the torque check of the S92 MGB bolts but it does have one. It also has a 150 hr frame inspection of the entire area surrounding the MGB mounting. The Jesus nut that is on most helicopters have a torque checks and believe it or not, a lot of time fail initially as the cones are setting.
I'm very sorry that I assumed there were threads in the airframe instead of nuts, I didn't realize this was such a deadly sin or I would have thought harder about it. Nuts have always been the better solution as you can easily replace all parts of the threads, but it's all but disappeared on "modern" things I've been in contact with probably because it's more hazzle to get a robot to mount. I realize that's of no importance here, but I've been used to thinking that bolts and nuts are a "thing of the past".
I'm not saying that doing torque checks as a part of normal maintenance is anything wrong. As I see it when EASA has to issue an AD for it being done more often than per AH/Eurocopter's instruction and the parts have to be inspected for cracks as well combined with the fact that a failure here in all likeliness will be catastrophic I think it would be natural to redesign those parts to have more "safety margin" - that is that they can take way more stress before cracks develop. Again I'm sorry if that comes across as fear mongering, to me it's just common sense.