I think that is as much a sign of the wavering confidence in the S92 due to an ongoing series of problems, as sign of proactive Sikorsky commitment.
There is a reason this is big news in Canada and it shows the rather pathetic attitudes of some to simply dismiss these defects.
The revelation that the CBC Fifth Estate documentary that the TSB had actually examined the failed studs from the first S92 total gearbox oil loss (in Australia in 2008) but failed to make a public recommendation prior to the tragedy in St Johns may not have made much of an effect overseas but it did not go unnoticed in Canada. Perhaps the Cougar crew would have ditched in time if they had known the truth from Australia.
I would expect the TSB not to be as dismissive as a bunch of PPRuNe armchair airworthiness engineers. TSB's failure to act certainly dents our faith in their competence (perhaps to be regained when they finally report) and faith in the SMSs in the industry.
Wavering confidence in the S92 - what the f###??? I think you are in some sort of different plane of reality to rest of the world of aviation and the offshore helicopter industry. There is definitely not an "ongoing series of problems". The S92 has a far better serviceability record on the line than its rivals. We have just taken another 4 machines in the last 18 months taking us up to 10. Look around at other operations and S92 orders are not doing too badly, and for good reason. I know our customers are also very happy with the reliability, performance and and safety of the S92. It has been a significant improvement in capability from the Puma. I think you are so isolated from the rest of the world that the reality has been very badly distorted due to the tragic cougar accident followed by gross distortion of the facts by the Canadian media.
The issue of the
STUDS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE OF CRACKED MOUNTING FEET. It has been effectively dealt with following the cougar accident. This has already been covered to death in this thread.
The issue of mounting feet cracking definitely not unique to the S92, and is being dealt with effectively by SAC incorporating new procedures for inspection, precautionary flight procedures, reducing torque, and lengthy investigation and studies. Far more than other companies have been willing to do in the past.
I am all for good discussion about the S92, after all I fly it, so have a vested interest in its safety, but please, don't just regurgitate to us the crap that is being published in the Canadian press, by half informed journalists looking to sell a story. That is the reason it is big news in Canada, and if you speak to anyone actually involved in flying and maintaining this aircraft you will get a very different story, with a good deal more fact.