"You said of me "he thinks if an accident is caused by "pilot error", the occupants need not be protected". Of course they need to be protected but all the protection in the world is no use if they drown alive. "
I thought most people were alive before they drowned; tends to define the whole concept?
I know they were pilot error: most accidents are (though the Claymore 61 was a MGB failure).
I can't see where there is confusion on this, clearly the 225 has a lot of much older main componants than the s-92 has, and these have been certified to an earlier standard, full stop (or period as the Americans would say). The 155 is in a similar boat; lots of 365 stuff in it (even crashworthy fuel tanks are an optional extra, and that's under the floor!)
Quibling over how long it takes to activate the back up gearbox lubrication, for instance, is missing the point; no actions have to be instant (okay, tail rotor failure in the hover, before anyone jumps on that point!). A double generator failure in may require immediate actions over and above the auto shed items, but still within a reasonable time frame. Even a fire drill should take a sensible period to execute, unless you are into shutting down the wrong engine.
It's a shame that this has degenerated to such a level on what seems to be a pretty clear cut topic. The 225 is basically old with new bits added, the 92 is basically new.
I have to say, though, that I far prefer the French concept of PFD/ND displays compared to the 92 and 139. I think by evolving from the basic Airbus displays with the 332 L2 through the 155/135 and the improved versions into the 225 they have got it right. The NH-90 is a step further again and that's superb.