FH1100 Pilot - good analysis!
It is worth remembering that in some juristictions there would be more that just claims for damages. In the UK there is now a crime of corporate manslaughter, brought in to make sure big companies are accountable for their actions.
After the terrible Nimrod crash in Afganistan, which killed 3 people less that Cougar 491, ten people were publically named and shamed for failures in connection with that accident by a special inquiry. The most senior was accused of:
...a "fundamental failure of leadership" ..and that... he failed, in truth, to make safety his first priority." All ten were facing diciplinary action and possible criminal or civil charges.
That inquiry commented that:
A safety review... was a "lamentable job" which failed to identify "key dangers", he said. "Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency and cynicism. The best opportunity to prevent the accident...was tragically lost".
One wonders what could be said about the FMEA for the S-92 and the analysis that falsely concluded the critical failures that occurred would be 'extremely remote' (and in practice were anything but). One also wonders who will stand up and take responsability for the short comings in teh design
Let us also not forget that the component that failed was a simple threaded stud, that was static and not heavily loaded. If the designers failed on such simple and basic components, one must seriously question other elements of the design. In fact the studs should not have even been critical components, it was only a poor design that made them critical!
Those who are critical of the pilots for not ditching into a choppy and freezing ocean need to remember that a certification loop-hole was cynically used to avoid fixing a known inability to operate with a loss of lubrication. Thirty minutes operation who have resulted in a safe landing.