What I am disagreeing with the rig workers saying that they were not happy with the SAR time of the rescue S-92.
Albatross, the reason that the offshore PAX were not happy with the SAR time is down to the fact that the current Helly Hansen E-452 immersion suits are not effective in preventing water ingress, thus reducing the survivability time greatly in our harsh environment. The only survivor Robert Decker had mild hypothermia after less than 90 minutes in the water, all because his suit let in water. We are currently flying over here with these suits after being supposedly fit-tested by Helly Hansen. The problem is mainly the face seal as there are very limited sizes. If you fail the suit fit test then some of the operators will transfer you by vessel, and you use a Fitzwright immersion suit for Frog transfer.
The issue is not the SAR response time IMO, it's the suits and the fact that this helo should have ditched immediately upon loss of MGB oil pressure below 5 psi. We need a decent survival suit and the chance to use it via a controlled landing. If this means tighter restrictions of weather/sea state conditions then so be it.
As to the events of 491, we are still waiting for the final TSB findings to explain the root cause failure of the titanium studs, and explanation on the other areas of concern raised in the report such as the activated flotation bags not inflating and the leakage of fuel, suspected to be from the sponson tanks. Still a lot of questions to be answered...