There was a recent Discovery Channel program (or maybe it was on Public TV) that discussed aviation risks and costs in the U.S. It focused on large airlines, but the bottom line was that in order to implement real safety change, a lot of people had to die. The insurance and aviation companies would calculate what the average settlement costs would be versus the costs of putting in new or upgraded safety equipment. If it costs LESS to pay-off the victim's families, then change was not likely to happen.
The point?... If a helicopter crew goes down, the expense to the company is far less, based on occuranace and actual number of claims, than it is for an airliner that carries several hundred passengers. Also, the Union (if they have one) isn't going to be able to dictate twin engine IFR aircraft to the companies... especially, when low-time pilots will line up to assume that risk just to get hours.
The FAA has two conflicting roles. They are charted to foster the aviation industry, but they are also chartered to regulate it. To me, that's a real conflict of interest.
Condolenses to family and friends.