Originally Posted by
birmingham
Concentric/AnFi
Given the complexity of the manufacturing process and the many steps necessary to ensure that a pristine product performs safely, it struck me as odd that a unit that had been damaged in a road accident was repaired and returned to service.
Now I know we have no idea whether it was a contributing factor and clearly we can't just throw away expensive kit at the drop of a hat, but safety critical components with very limited opportunities for redundancy such as an MGB? If such a thing receives a shock loading outside of its normal operational environment which causes damage which needs to be repaired, surely it would be prudent to write it off as an insurance loss. I am not familiar with the overhaul that was carried out but it would be close to impossible to ensure the safety standards inherent in the manufacturing process or a routine overhaul from normal wear and tear.
Neither you nor I knows what "repaired" means for that gear box. It covers a lot of ground. The details of that may or may not be in the final report.
What was disassembled?
How far down was the gear box taken down?
What was inspected?
What was found damaged?
What was replaced?
What was repaired?
Not enough information to assess the return to service decision.
As to "write it off and collect the insurance" -- that's one way to go. But doesn't that decision depend on what you found out once you opened up the gear box and assessed what was or wasn't damaged after that transportation accident?