Originally Posted by
RangerNS
Vs
I'm impressed your manage clarity when the OEM and operator does not.
Crystal clear to me that the airframe did not meet a threshold of unserviceablility. EHUMS isn't regulatory. The next flight was fine (apparently).
? See my post where I referenced this:
" The inspection at CYUL found that the aircraft had sustained substantial damage, including buckling of the skin below the windows on the right fuselage (Figure 1). The landing conditions experienced by the right main landing gear during the second touchdown exceeded its ultimate design criteria, which resulted in failure of the orifice support tube during the in-stroke (Figure 2). Once the orifice support tube failed, shock strut damping was effectively lost, thereby generating significant bottoming loads."
"