Originally Posted by
Apate
Sorry turboshaft I've been reading this from the start and you're simply making some of this up. I've no idea what you motivation is, but I suggest you think before you type!
To take each of your points - when did they claim the "helicopter had not had any problems"?
MGB TBO. You take a statement from someone (who could be a 12 year old school boy for all you know!) on this forum that the TBO is 2000 as gospel and immediately conclude that CHC are lying. Interesting approach!
Finally . Now I know English isn't your first language, but I don't even know what you are on about
In any case, is this a "contradiction", which is what you were asserting?
Simmer down lad,
I am not claiming anyone lying.
a contradiction simply meaning there are two different explanations.
I did not say that I conclude to either one of those.
I am trying to get the facts straight, those few that exist
What is the TBO MGB for commercial flight with the EC225?
2000 hours or 4400 hours?
It was claimed to be problem free and had flown 6 commercial flights the same day without indications of anything wrong.
Then it came clear of the problems and abrupted flights in the days before.
After that, those two "stories" are merged and told chronologically, but not before.
If you need a
PR advisor when speaking to the press
I would assume there is a significant risk of stepping on the wrong foot.
The questions where so easy, they hold back and now they are answered officially anyway.
That is a contradiction if there is no information behind that could put responsibility on the shoulders of CHC
keep up the constructive tone:
Originally Posted by
Apate
I think Airbus should be praised for finding the root cause so quickly. What a shame the AIBN and AAIB, Norwegian and UK CAA are all taking SOOOOO long to come to a similar conclusion
and be consecutive
Originally Posted by
Apate
So many 225 fan boys falling for the Airbus ploy of deflection.