All good views and along the right lines I'm sure. It may only be a 332 Super Puma, but I still tend to fly that at night on 'automatics'. Not as reliable as a 225 or 92 I'm sure, but once level at 300ft, you can still couple it up in altitude and heading hold. Whilst I wouldn't take my eyes off the instruments for a moment, it does a pretty good job.
My concern is that no matter what you are flying, the landing still has to be done manually. Sometimes not too difficult with a well lit deck and lots of background to look at - other times, looking out into the blackness with your landing light trying to pick out the texture on the deck surface, even basic hovering can feel different. Whilst I agree that a well set up, stable and controlled approach is the key to a good safe landing at the end, even the best approach can still go horribly untidy and scary as you try to manouver visually to land.
I also find it concerning that given that we may have 18 passengers in the back, a landing at night in difficult conditions, can be the entire responsibility of one pilot, perhaps with very limited experience. The non-handling pilot can be demoted to just another passenger. OK, slightly harsh, but I would say I have had landings at night as NHP where I try to provide all the assistance I can, but in reality I cannot see the surface, obstacles, approach path or landing area. All I can do is call out rates of descent and speeds etc, and rely on that data to build up a picture that the approach is controlled and stable. If it started to go wrong, I really can't be certain whether I would pick it up in time, and I suppose we can see from Morecambe Bay how that can turn out.
As we have said so many times - Is that a satisfactory method for what is supposed to be Public Air Transport ?? Not with my wife and kids on board !