No dry-run capability.
No ELS.
Still no confirmed root cause failure from the TSB for flight 491, and yet after this AD it's supposedly OK to be safe to fly again. Absolutely unbelievable.
Main use offshore transferring PAX on long-haul flights.
Safest helo in the world, I think not...how many more MGB component failures are required before CS 29.927 "extremely remote" classification cannot be used as a feeble excuse?
FAA should be taken to court for certifying this helo for offshore use in the first place. Ditching in any sea state is not a preferred option, but with no auto-rotate reliability becomes impossible. Take a look at the state of the fuselage and you'll see that this helo hit the water really hard, say 500 feet/minute.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada | | A09A0016 | Sikorsky S92-A
When will the manufacturer assume accountability for this design error and rectify? How many more S-92s must break down before something positive will get done. Learning by fatalities should not have to happen, that's why we are meant to have the highest safety standards and rigorous certification procedures in this industry.
This is 2009, technology and safety standards are meant to advance, not retard. All pilots and PAX should refuse to fly these helos until the MGB is upgraded to provide the minimum safety standards. In the real world this won't happen, but try telling that to the relatives of the victims of flight 491.