Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe? Yes, the gearbox failed in the worst way. But that's fixed now, isn't it? Would you rather fly a sixty year old proven airframe over large distances of unwelcome ocean, or the S92? I'd pick the latter (provided the transmission is fixed).
With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.
I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.
Matthew.