......and the ones that cannot....what about them?
What about the aircraft with MGB's that are not able to contain a gear failure and afford a safe landing?
How many single point failures do we tolerate that can result in a catastrophic result?
Some of you are banging a drum about run dry and are ignoring another glaring problem right before your eyes.
Why 30 Minutes....why not 60 minutes....120 minutes?
What is magic about 30 minutes?
This gets back to my point about Certification Standards....and the fact they are not made in a vacuum by the various Authorities. Certification testing is not done in a vacuum....thus we should not be having these arguments following some tragedy where we see unforeseen but preventable disasters.....or disasters that go unexplained.
Open your eyes folks....it is not a SA, Leonardo, AH, Bell problem....it is an Industry Problem that affects all of us.
Shall we go back through all the new aircraft from the past few years and remind ourselves of the problems each of them faced after being put into Operation?
The 92 with the Oil Filter and Transmission mounts, the 225 with the Epicycle Module, the 139 Tail Booms, the 109 with its problems, the 205 with its problems, the Chinook....let he who be without Sin here....throw that Stone.
No....there shall never be a fault free aircraft....but we should hope to see them as failure tolerant as possible.
Two good Case Studies can be the 92 and the 225 MGB's if we want.
Why not take a very critical look at each....and see the lessons that can be learned....they take us down separate but similar tracks and lets see where the problems started in each of them.
Each hoped to be State of the Art Machines....and each in its own way is. Each has had problems.
Each started in different Cultures....one American and the other European and they are two very different environments....what role does that play in all of this?