Here's my PAX (and layman's) view of the current situation.
S-92a certificaton should be robust enough to ensure that system design meets all operational requirements, which for offshore means no MGB lube oil leaks, and if one develops then the tranny can last long enough to get safely back to non-hostile terrain i.e. land.
Landing in the drink, whether controlled or otherwise, is the very last resort. Perhaps a tailfin like the Blackhawk would have helped 491 during an AR attempt, perhaps not. Moot point if a controlled landing under power was attempted and SS6 flotation was installed to give PAX a chance.
We have several PAX refusing to fly this helo now on safety grounds via their right to refuse unsafe work, initially after the recent public interview by Robert Decker on the issues with sitting in a non-window seat, now reinforced by the MGB mounting feet cracks. No MGB should develop cracks within 10 hours operation, period, that's just a basic design flaw.
The more publicity on these matters, hence this posting on this public thread, the better. SKY, or SAC or whatever you wish to call them, how about SIKORSKY, have a huge amount of work ahead of them to repair their damaged reputation with this A/C type. Settling out of court with the families of 491 will not be suffice, the ongoing enquiry and pending TSB report will make sure of that.
Safe flying
Max (currently offshore waiting for the new HH HTS-1 flight suit a.k.a. orange body bag to be rubber-stamped by some Transport Canada employee in Ottawa)