Brian, in court when that document is produced (as it most assuredly will be), the SAC lawyers/engineers/whomever will shuffle their feet, clear their throats and go, "Well...aahhhh...uhhhhhh...geez. You see, we really believed that the lines to the oil cooler were the ONLY possible point-of-failure in the transmission lubrication system."
Then, if the plaintiff's attorney is smart, he'll ask: "Are there NO other places that oil might leak out of the transmission? For instance, does the transmission have input seals for the engine driveshafts?"
SAC: "Yes, of course."
ATTY: "I see. And is there an oil seal up where the mast comes out of the transmission?"
SAC: "Yes, of course."
ATTY: "Is there an oil seal where the tail rotor drive shaft comes out of the transmission?"
SAC: "Yes, of course."
ATTY: "So that's four oil seals so far...which are used when you want to keep oil *inside* something, is that correct?"
SAC: "Yes, of course."
ATTY: "And there's no way on God's green earth that oil under pressure could even possibly leak out from those locations?"
SAC: "No. No way. Those seals would never fail. Seals don't fail."
ATTY: "Oh, they don't, huh? Well, humour me for a moment, please. IF a seal did fail, could all of the transmission oil be pumped overboard and lost?"
SAC: "Well...yes...theoretically...if you want to split hairs."
ATTY: "Well that is what we attorneys do best, sir! But thank you. But we'll come back to your seals-that-never-fail in a bit. Meantime, does the S-92 have an externally-mounted oil filter"
SAC: "Yes, yes of course."
ATTY: "And tell the court, please, how is that filter attached to the main structure of the gearbox?"
SAC: "Well, we use studs to secure the filter housing to the transmission."
ATTY: "Ah yes, the infamous studs. And is there an oil seal of some sort there as well?"
SAC: "Yes, of course."
And the jury will see that there are PLENTY of places where oil might possibly leak out of an S-92 transmission, not just the oil cooler lines as Sikorsky claimed. The jury will likely conclude that the manufacturer was either negligent in their thinking, OR the FAA was "in bed" with them on this issue. How or why the FAA allowed Sikorsky to get away with that wacky (and insufficient IMHO) isolate-the-lines-to-the-cooler system is something they're probably worried about right now. I can imagine the FAA Administrator at his desk, cradling his head in his hands and going, "Holy Geez, did we REALLY approve that cockamamie setup? Why...WHY?!"
Either way, with their goofy "emergency bypass system," SAC circumvented the letter *and* spirit of the regulations under which the aircraft was certified. That's pretty clear. Then they tried to mislead the customers into thinking that the aircraft could run for a half-hour without transmission juice. That's pretty clear, too.
In fact, the S-92 does not have a "30-minute run-dry" capability. Sikorsky knew that it would last only ten minutes if it *really* ran dry. Which is just about what Cougar got. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if *any* gearbox could run for more than a couple of minutes with no oil whatsoever.
And so it will be interesting to see how a jury feels about two dead pilots...how sympathetic they'll be to their plight: Over the inhospitable, icy, rough North Atlantic Ocean, faced with two different emergency procedures based on whether the transmission oil pressure gauge read 5 psi or 0 psi - and unless it's a digital gauge the difference will be hard to detect...
Tell you what, even *I* wouldn't want to be sitting on that jury.