Phil77, I completely agree - it is a position none of us would relish - a major gearbox malfunction miles from land over a very inhospitable sea.
The decision to deliberately ditch in such conditions would come with the high probability that some of your pax wouldn't survive - think of what was probably going through the pilots mind - it is tantamount to asking him to commit murder and, when there is a perceived option (admittedly based on supposition that the gearbox has a 30 min run-dry capability) to try and get closer to land (quicker rescue) or even make landfall, one can quite understand how all the training in the world might not help make the right decision.
I have immense sympathy for the families of the pilots as no doubt they will end up taking or sharing the blame for trying to make the best of a horrendous situation which should never have arisen had the manufacturers and regulators done their jobs properly.
As for this
Additionally, the FAA and Sikorsky Aircraft are working to identify all the modes of failure that might lead to Sikorsky S-92A MGB oil loss, determining their probability of occurrence, and developing appropriate mitigation strategies
Isn't that what they were supposed to have done before the aircraft flew - and isn't a 'mitigation strategy' the same bullsh*t as saying there is a very remote likelihood of a failure and then allowing a sidestepping of the FARs?