though some recent AAIB reports seem to be written by people who don't understand helicopters
Well, I know for a fact that the senior investigator is a very experienced helicopter pilot, and also a frequentor of these forums (since 1998, in fact!) I was fortunate enough to chat with him briefly very recently, although sadly not long enough to get into much detail on this topic.
I agree wholeheartedly about the dual rating issues, and was extremely disappointed that the operators pushed the regulator(s) to move away from separate type ratings - as JAR FCL-2 envisaged - and moved to single type with differences. If they were different types it would not be possible to fly as commander on both, in the same day (under OPS-3.)
Regarding the TAWS, I wonder if in the final stages of the descent the 100 ft call was inhibited by the normal rate of descent filtering designed to prevent nuisance warnings (crossing deck edge?) AVAD has this too - let's not open that old debate again......More to the point - why was there no TERRAIN warning ('soft' and 'hard')? My experience of the MK XXII is that it will give warning when attempting to fly into the sea.
I think this will be a good report, and will cover a whole range of issues both technical and Human Factors, as well as procedural. Questions about the use of automation will no doubt figure, and further impetus to improve the deck lighting will arise. The recent initiative by ECF to improve the flight envelope for the AFCS, for free, is very welcome, and hopefully will spur their competitor to do likewise!