Old 1st Jun 2016, 21:00
  #1054 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 57
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by turboshafts View Post
I am writing here now, as it becomes evident that the
MGB and Rotor assembly change as claimed by CHC and referred in the media have probably not taken place.

MGB change 17 January 2016
MRA change 27 March 2016

With relation to todays released pictures by AIBN
I find it strange that there is already fatigue cracks in
crucial parts of the Main Rotor assembly. A mere month and few flying hours after the claimed change.

In the Public Electronic Postjournal in Norway all the official correspondance between CAAN and CHC are stored in the
Aviation Technical Folder of LN-OJF.

These are available to the public, and is now matter of attention to AIBN.

"Undersøkelser av helikopterets vedlikeholdshistorikk har nettopp begynt og vil trolig gi en bedre forståelse av de mest sannsynlige årsakene"

"Investigations of the helicopters maintainance history have just started and will probably give a better understanding of the most plausible causes."

Here are some main points of the maintainence history:

Last Airworthiness Review Certificate is released

This is the last record in the Aviation Technical Folder of LN-OJF

It is strange that this is released one week before the change of MGB
but no documents thereafter?

The rest of the maintainance history of the MGB is as follows:
CHC send Airbus Technical Agreement on extended TBO on MGB
to CAAN. [Can anyone refer to the main points in extended TBO on MGB technical agreement? ]

Application for extended TBO on MGB sent from CHC to CAAN

Approval of extended TBO by CAAN

Airworthiness Review Certificate sent by CHC to CAAN

Application for extended TBO on MGB sent by CHC to CAAN

Approval of extended TBO on MGB by CAAN

Application for second extended TBO on MGB sent by CHC to CAAN

Approval of extended TBO on MGB

Last Airworthiness Review Certificate sent from CHC to CAAN.

So these electronic journals of the communication between CHC and CAAN are pointing in the direction that someone has information shared with the Media that is not correct.

Where are the documentation, approval and correspondance between CHC and CAAN
after 17 of January until 27 of March, where the claimed MGB and MRA change have taken place?

After that and until the breakdown incident there are no records.

4 times extended TBO on MGB
and there are found fatigue cracks in critical components.

The maintenance review Cert is an annual check / review of the airframe, at the time of the review.

Given the findings of the investigation I would suggest that it is more appropriate to follow the history of the MGB rather than the airframe.
n305fa is offline