Max,
You can test the fitness of the 92 however you wish.....but if you do....apply the same criteria to the other aircraft that are out there today...but do it in a logical, reasonable, even handed manner.
I personally think the review should be focused upon the FAA, their application of Part 29 and the results of that.
As the 92 and the 139 are the only two aircraft certified under part 29 that excludes the EC line of aircraft as they have been approved under a less strict set of rules than the 92/139.
That being said....either we have to accept the EC line are inferior aircraft due to that lack of certification under Part 29 and the 92/139 are therefore superior unless we can prove the FAA implementation of the Part 29 standards compromised the intent and purpose of the certification standards they set out to require.
This logical argument is not to be viewed as suggesting the EC line compared to the 92/139 is better or worse in reality but rather do the certification standards on each side of the Great Saltwater Divide meet the need of the industry and live up to their published goals. Somewhere in the discussion it should be determined neither standard as they exist now and are implemented are the final answer. The followup argument will be to define just what the standard should be.
I have stated my views.....but it they are those of a long time helicopter pilot and not a lawyer, aeronautical engineer, statitican, or an actuary.
I want to see an aircraft design that is safe to fly, dependable, and properly designed, tested, and certified to a fixed set of easy to understand set of standards. I do not believe in waivers....either you meet the required standard or you do not get the certification.