Originally Posted by
Concentric
findings of particles on another aircraft G-REDN, particularly the 2011 discovery. Quite why, after identifying a particle as 16NCD13 steel, that aircraft was authorised to fly under ‘close monitoring’ for 25 FH then resumed routine flight for a further 87 FH is something that today might be considered unwise...
In other news… whilst everyone’s attention has been on the lifting of the H225 ban by CAA and CAA(N) on 7th July 2017, Airbus and EASA have recalled planet gears of 2 types for the Dauphin family (SA365, AS365 and EC155) according to AD 2017-0116 dated 5th July 2017 citing similar differences in contact stress to the H225 findings. Whatever next?
Regardless of what and how much it was retained in the gearbox, chipping criteria is based on calculation and backed by statistical data. Same goes to damage tolerance on the gearbox. Silica related to 2nd stage gear however, is new to many including me. Can you elaborate more?
Dauphin bearing recall is an AH initiative. If anything is to take away from it, is that they are obviously singling out OEMs. The bearing and gear are totally different from puma. Unlike Puma, dauphin never had the power to hurt the its MGB, It's said in a way that AH might not take my good intention gracefully.