Was there not a Sikorsky Safety Advisory on a change to the RFM to detail indications of gearbox oil loss that could (according to Sikorsky) be ignored that was issued just a few weeks after the CHC Australia emergency landing in WA?
Could this have caused confusion?
If I recall Sikorsky also said that smoke in the cabin should not be considered an emergency.
Certainly days after the Cougar crash, EASA issues an emergency directive that the Sikorsky advisory was a proposal and had been rejected. Even the FAA then came out against Sikorsky.