Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Getting industry buy in to a never ending cost center over and above current cert requirements puts a very hard edge on "the continuous improvement model" -- for all that I agree on periodic review to get after some of those difficult trade offs that have to be made to get anything built
I was proposing conducting periodic design review/validation in specific areas where new analysis tools/techniques can provide a more accurate result than those used in the original certification analysis work. The analysis/validation work can be performed by any qualified organization, public or private. As for funding, in the US this should come from the FAA or NASA. Making use of technology to improve aircraft safety is one of their primary mandates. This analysis/validation effort would be fairly limited in scope in any given year, and could easily be accommodated by the FAA or NASA budgets. I think spending 0.1% of NASA's $18B+ annual budget on ensuring safety & reliability of the existing commercial rotorcraft fleet is a much better use of taxpayer money than sending space probes to Jupiter.
As for the cost impact to OEMs, if the result of the validation/analysis work demonstrates a solid case for implementing changes to the design certified by the FAA, then the FAA and OEM both should share the cost to correct the situation.
A great example of how recent technology developments can greatly improve the loss of lube capability of a legacy MRGB design, is shown in this presentation from 2009 describing the significantly increased high-temperature performance offered by the new C-64 gear steel alloy versus the existing gear steel alloys X-53 and 9310. The 500+degF increase in tempering temperature limit provides a huge advantage in loss of lube conditions. C64 did not even exist when the EC225 MRGB design was certified.