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.
Actually only for a very small number of 109SP and only those operated by one particular company, REGA.
Due to the nature of their work, short duration max weight climbs to rescue and then near auto rotation back to base (I'm grossly over simplifying the marvelous work that REGA do), AW thought it prudent to issue a completely separate Maintenance Planning Manual for them. They actually have their own set of Maintenance Manuals for these aircraft they are so different.
EASA enforced the new publications through an AD.
No other 109S/SP are affected. The 175 AD affects all H175's from what I can see.
But yes, it is just EASA's way of making sure that Operators comply with Bulletins already issued by the OEM. I don't know about EASA land, but in FAA land OEM Bulletins do not have to be complied with, even if the OEM says they are mandatory. Only AD's have to be complied with.
So sometimes, the OEM will approach the FAA to get an AD published if the OEM sees that Customers are not carrying out a mandatory Bulletin, thereby forcing them to comply.
Sorry for the thread drift
