Originally Posted by
Apate
Using Google Chrome translate feature reveals:
The highlights are mine.
Note that the box was overhauled/repaired by AH, if the text is correct.
I assume the SF meeting was held a little before evidence was apparently found of a fatigue crack in the epicyclic. However, we now have two separate maintenance related events;
1. Fitting of suspension bolts/ possible over torque related fatigue crack,
2. Damage to and repair of the MGB.
So did a failure related to 1 actually occur and precede a failure related to 2 or vice versa?
Was the fatigue/damage apparently found in the MGB initiated inside or outside the aircraft?
They should have all the maintenance records, do they now have enough bits and pieces for the metallurgy, finite element analysis etc?
The stakes are incredibly high even by the standards of an air accident enquiry.
Sorting out the wood from the trees will be a complicated process.