Not much has been reported about the meetings between the pax and the opertaors and without knowing that both sides are working together to openly address the problems, this entire thread is rabble rousing
Carholme, we are officially not allowed to disclose any information regarding the answers to the questions that we collectively submitted to the combined offshore/operator task force, suffice to say that the answers were not what we were looking for.
I only speak for myself in this forum, but know that a lot of my fellow colleagues are seeking clarification/information through this forum due to the fact that the official paths open to us appear to be at a relative stalemate.
You raise a lot of good points, but as other thread contributors have stated we are currently against a wall of compliance statements, which does nothing to alleviate our concerns with this helo.
We can all conjecture on the reasons for the deafening silence from the manufacturer, but that will not change the current status quo.
Wrt. our right to refuse dangerous work and the potential inclusion of the S-92a within that criteria, that is a very grey and political area right now.
In my own mind I keep going back to the safety statement that all work should be made as safe as reasonably practicable (ALARP). This includes travel to/from the workplace and IMO the S-92a safety capabilities can be improved upon, compliance with the current applicable regulations does not allow for this. Improvement in this area will not happen without the collective support of the oil companies, operators, pilots and PAX. A smart manufacturer would also embrace this concept and thus improve their currently perceived image...
Hopefully the TSB report upon release will provide a catalyst to this requirement and assist all parties in moving this issue forward. In the meantime and being realistic we will have to just get on with it, as is the case with many other examples in life of where safety is compromised by cost impact. The key point is to keep actively debating the issue and being pro-active, which sometimes means accepting both positive and negative albeit constructive criticism.