Ambiguous?
I hate to jump in on this, but I have to kind of back up what Sox6 says about N. Lappos and ambiguity.
I remember reading Nick's post - the glowing report about the testing SAC did on the S-92 transmission. We can dig them up and cut-and-paste them if necessary. I remember being impressed with the numbers- of how long it ran without oil. And "without oil" was implied (by Nick) and assumed (by most of us). I'll bet most of us did not completely grasp the nature of that goofy oil cooler bypass thing - that the successful use of it was dependant upon the pilots detecting a leak in the cooler lines and doing something about it before all the juice was pumped overboard.
Flash forward. We know now that "without oil" was not the case at all. We know now that all Sikorsky did was cause (or simulate) a leak in one of the lines to the external oil cooler, and then isolate that cooler and keep on truckin', as they say.
So yes, Sox6 is right: In that regard Nick was being a little ambiguous about that test because he did not mention that Sikorsky knew that without any oil the transmission wouldn't last 10 minutes. Which was, tragically, proven in the field at a later date.
But wait. Hang on. We also know that the rules are ambiguous, aren't they? Disregarding that awkward "extremely remote" wording, we know that the rules do not call for a complete loss of all transmission oil and then 30 minutes of continued operation. Nope, the particular rule only references "a" loss of lubricant, and it doesn't specify how much lubricant must be or can be lost. There's some wriggle-room in the interpretation, and SAC used it every millimeter of it.
After Cougar, Nick was in a horrible, unenviable position (and likely still is, depending on what litigation comes out of that crash). At the time of certification, he probably really, really, really, really believed that those oil cooler lines were the "only" potential source of a leak. Hey, nobody's perfect. So even if Nick was not being totally clear or forthcoming, are we to assume he was being deliberately ambiguous or worse, dishonest? No. And I think it would be unfair to him for us to assume so.
Now Sikorsky, on the other hand...
Well... that's for the courts to decide. The real courts. Here on the internet, the PPRUNE court of popular opinion has ruled that Sikorsky fudged on that "extremely remote" stuff, and the FAA went right along with them.