212man, I accept a degree of risk in any mode of transport I use and most certainly you as a pilot accept an even greater degree via the additional flying hours spent in these helos, but as a PAX and using this transport as my only regular mode of transport to working offshore (weather-permitting) it is up to the operator and client (oil company) to ensure that this helo is as safe as is reasonably practical. IMHO if it is proven that the S-92a does not comply with FAR29/CS29 then this breaches this requirement. I'm quite sure that the impending lawsuits by the bereaved families will view this in a similar manner...
Wrt. the Malaysian MGB failure I accept that this event was not the same as Broome or flight 491, but the same issue of MGB reliablility is still valid. I did not mean to imply that it was the same common mode of failure. I appreciate that you have real first-hand experience of that particular incident and know only too well the limitations of the S-92 MGB design. I'm just not confident that SAR and the FAA are being proactive enough with this helo to iron out it's weaknesses and make it legally compliant with the applicable safety standards.
It is everybody's decision what they choose to accept as safe or unsafe, at present I'm on the fence with the S-92a. I would fly in a S-61 or Super Puma Mk2 any day, as I have done over the past 18 years with no qualms. I trust the pilots first and the aircraft second, always have.