And as I said in my post, the FLOATATION equipment worked as advertised, that is the equipment that is designed to keep the aircraft afloat. The deployment of the dinghies (life-rafts) did not as referred to in the letters. However, the statement
The helicopter was equipped with two automatic inflatable life rafts
is incorrect as they are not automatic, i.e. they do not come out automatically on landing on water. They must be deployed using one of three methods:
1. A handle in the cockpit.
2. A handle on the outside of the cabin aft of the main cabin door
3. If 1 or 2 do not work then two catches on the sponson must be released to lift a panel and then a handle on the dinghy itself is pulled.
By pulling either items 1 or 2, the sponson panel is opened and the dinghy inflates out of its hold to be placed by the cabin door. Item 3 is if the other two methods fail. I have seen film as to what the problem was with the deployment of these dinghies, and the EC225 has a completely different (and better) mechanical system, although the same three methods are used for deployment of these dinghies.
There is nothing in the links that I can see that
this was blamed in that report to be the reason why that airframe was damaged too much for repair
I think there is some misunderstanding here as to what are floatation devices for the aircraft and what are life-rafts for the passengers and crew.
From what I was told, the aircraft could have been re-built if it had been both fresh-water washed regularly after being recovered from Texel beach, and released relatively quickly by the Dutch investigators. However, as far as I know they have still not released G-JSAR and it currently sits in a hangar in Marignane awaiting a decision from them. Corrosion will definitley have taken its toll on the airframe and I doubt this aircraft will ever be rebuilt now.
