Originally Posted by
puntosaurus
I've no particular view on the 175 or the machinations of AH, but I think it's a little paranoid to rope EASA into some conspiracy theory on the basis of this evidence. I went looking for a similar AD in relation to another manufacturer and found this for the AW109SP.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
I do not agree.
In the case of the '175 "the early removal of some components of the main rotor head, it was determined that the
certification assumption on the use of the EC175 helicopter in a specific domain (...) were not conservative for some operators, typically conducting off-shore missions. Consequently, the airworthiness limitations were reassessed..."
As for the '109SP the AD's reason is different: "(...) Change 6 of the ALS, recently approved by EASA, introduces new airworthiness limitations.
Failure to comply with the instructions contained in the ALS could result in an unsafe condition.
For the reason described above, this AD requires implementation of the new airworthiness limitations as specified in the ALS at change 6."