After watching as a bystander for over a week I felt it was time to chime in.
I've watched this thread go from sorrow and sympathy, to bashing Sikorsky, and now to bashing the offshore operators.
First: the 92 has not had more MGB problems than any other new A/C put into service. Regretfully I cannot remember one helo, with the exception of the Hughes 500, that went into offshore service in the GOMEX that did not have a fatality.
For the 225 champions, I would like to remind those that aren't old enough to remember that their illustrious manufacturer had a known MGB problem in the grandfather of the 225, the 330J, that caused at least one fatal accident before they told the operators there was a problem.
Also, despite repeated statements to that fact, there is not a lot of commonality between the 92 and the Blackhawk. The are systems that are similar, the same goes for the 61. What the 92 test pilots told me was that they tried to get the best features from the 61,76 and blackhawk, and adapt them to the 92.
If Sikorsky had won the USAF SAR contract, perhaps the "run-dry" MGB would have appeared. My understanding is that Sikorsky ran a transmission, it didn't make 30 min, they made some mods to help with lubrication, and never re-ran the test.
My personal experience is that besides the usual "nusiance" lights that plagued us at the start of operations 4 1/2 years ago, we've had more problems with the CT-7s than with the airframe, and more problems with accesories in the airframe (AirCond etc) than with the A/C itself.
I was suprised to see an earlier post where another 92 pilot thought they should be grounded until an answer is found and "they fix the MGB" when we don't yet know for sure that it was the cause.
Some others have asked the more appropriate question. "When was the MGB filter last serviced?"
We will all find out what the Board determines to be "the cause" when they do, some people may change their mind about what they've said.