Originally Posted by
gulliBell
..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.
In my experience as an investigator, I assure you that my mind is very open.
Your argument is simply illogical. We would never fly anything new if it increased the risk each time newer technology was introduced. And just because an accident involving human factors did not occur, does not mean that those factors were absent at any point in the past, or in this incident. Additionally, sometimes accidents are avoided through plain dumb luck.
The correlation between two factors does not mean that the change in one factor (eg the type of helicopter, twin vs single engine) is the cause in the change in the value of the other factor (accident rate, incident rate). There is no evidence to suggest that there is a causal relationship between accident rates and the introduction of multi-engine helicopter operations; in fact, the opposite exists. It's why clients around the world increasingly demand multi-engine helicopters instead of singles - because the real-world evidence (as opposed to a feeling you have) is that they are much safer.
When an operator introduces new types, there is significant oversight of the process. It includes operations manual changes, training and checking, evaluation, training approvals, licensing, contract oversight, and a change process. It's not like going down to the local dealership and driving away an hour later with a new Toyota to replace your clapped out VH Commodore, to use your simile.
To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.