Can't speak for Epiphany, Crab, but after 6 1/2 years on the 139, I'm still happy with it overall.
Until I get further details about the Brazil accident, I'll go along with Agusta's BT, which is basically an extension of the inspection done on the blades each day by the AME's, but brings in an early retirement as an extra precaution.
I'd like further info on the supposed vibration issue that SEK may have had previously and why it was on the ground for 3 days because of it, as reported by North&South (if this is true).
Pretty much every wide body aircraft we fly on to get to our jobs (those of us touring in the oil industry) has had a catastrophic accident at some point in it's life and we still travel on them. 747 center fuel tanks exploding, MD11 entertainment system fires, A330 pitot icing, 767 thrust reverser operating in flight etc etc. Not to mention basically every type of helicopter we travel in too.
Agusta will fix this, just like Sikorsky, Bell, MD, Boeing, Airbus and the others have in the past.
Not trying to play down the seriousness of what could be a major issue with the 139, but I'll wait for some factual evidence rather than jump to conclusions about what could be the problem. Yes, we know from Agusta that a TR blade came off, but WHY? That is the question I'm wanting the answer to.
Now, lets see how quickly Agusta can support their customers. There are going to be a LOT of tail rotor blades coming off very shortly, and oil companies don't like helicopters sitting on the ground! More to the point, if the tail rotor blade does turn out to be a potential point of failure, how quickly can they design a new one and get it into production? Assuming that is, that the tail rotor blade design is a factor, rather than quality control or operational use.
Hopefully all parties involved will be pressing on with getting this sorted one way or the other as soon as possible!