Phugs,
I am astonished at your complacent attitude to this accident.
Human factor are implicated in (probably) more than 75% of accidents; if it is known that a material/product/procedure is not tolerant to human practices/intervention, it must be engineered out.
The S92 is not doing 'pretty well' it has a history of gearbox events including a carbon copy of this event in Broome last year - perhaps it is the lack of an expeditious response to that incident which might now be called into question. Were regulators/operators aware of the criticality of that incident for an aircraft that spends most of its time over hostile areas? Did SAC/FAA allow too much leeway for compliance?
There has been substantial prevarication about the ability of the gearbox to meet the FAR 29.927 standard. Are we entitled to know about lack of compliance? Did this feature in the crew's decision to turn back to fly to land rather than land immediately?
Contributors to this board also have to bear some responsibility; how many times (even recently) have we heard a call to 'interpret' the check list. Only from FH1100 (a pity he/she has now been banned) have we heard an unequivocal call to comply with the procedure.
Don't post just to get your name on the Internet - think about what you are saying.