Fleet grounding for inspection question.

[ALFA8C]

Guys,
At what point after an incident do manufacturers decide to ground their aircraft fleet for a mechanical inspection, if at all?
Sorry if it is an ignorant question, i'm just curious.
Many thanks.

[flip2]

I can't give you a definitive answer.

The manufacturer gets involved very early on in the investigation. Not only do they have a vested interest in the outcome, but their knowledge of the aircraft type is normally of the utmost importance in unraveling what happened.

There are major implications in grounding (or not grounding) a fleet. If the manufacturer grounds all the aircraft unnecessarily, there are major expenses (not only the inspections themselves, but the loss of revenue and the cost of finding alternative types to cover contracts etc.). Indirectly, it will also create a loss of confidence in the brand and could jeopardize future sales.

Conversely, if the manufacturer does not ground an aircraft and a similar event occurs... well you can see where that one will go, particularly if it is subsequently shown that they had a good idea what the issue was!

So what it will boil down to is a realistic assessment by legal teams, engineers and management on a case-by-case basis having considered all the facts and recommendations from investigatory bodies.

The manufacturer will certainly have far more information that the general public and operators, so it makes it very hard for us to guess what will happen.

[ALFA8C]

Thanks Flip.
I was just asking with reference to the Glasgow incident as i've not heard anything about the EC 135s being grounded for inspection.

[flip2]

Special bulletin has been issued by AAIB, outlining the initial information of the investigation.

[ALFA8C]

I have read the bulletin over and over again yet still find it a mystery what on earth happened.

[flip2]

Indeed. It is thus far a tragic mystery, at least to us the general public.

[ALFA8C]

In fact it seems to have opened a bigger can of worms than was there originally.

It states, in a round about way, what DIDN'T happen rather than what DID happen. It is worded very specifically and hasn't really quashed any of the theories as to the cause of the tragic accident.