I don't think the story was fair at all for the following reasons:
From a post I made on another forum:
With all of the hype and media crap arguing about the "30 min run dry capability", I would suggest that everybody use caution in their interpretation of what is being discussed.
Remember one important fact. The present S92A Flight Manual does not state anywhere in the Emergency Procedures that continued 30 min flight is allowed for the type of indications this crew were faced with. This was not a BYP (Bypass) problem
From the flight manual:
If the MGB OIL PRES warning or the MGB OIL PRES caution and any of the following secondary indications of gearbox
failure are observed:
MGB oil pressure below 5 psi
Smoke or fumes in the cabin
Any subsequent hydraulic system failure
Progressively increasing power required to maintain flight
Unusual vibrations or noises.
6. Land immediately.
Therefore if the crew reports are correct that they did report a complete loss of MGB oil pressure, LAND IMMEDIATELY was their option
There seems to be statements from certain areas that the crew was possibly under the idea that the gearbox did have a run dry capability and therefore proceeded under this assumption. I don't think it serves the crew very well for this kind of conjecture to be running rampant. I would find it hard to believe, that with their knowledge of the aircraft they would continue flight, thinking that they had 30 mins remaining, especially with the return distance to a shore point.
I just think that we should give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
carholme