Hello, new poster but I've been lurking here for oooh about ten years.
I work in O&G in Aberdeen but I'm a lawyer by training and qualification, grew up in the area and flew gliders at Aboyne when I was younger (some of you on here may well have been my instructors) so I have a reasonable understanding of how things work though I should state that I've never worked offshore and I'm not a pilot so I'm not going to go anywhere near the technical aspects.
I was reading this thread last night and thought that some of the comments regarding offshore workers were rather patronising. Then I saw the posts on Facebook...oh dear.
So far as I can tell, the Super Puma had an excellent reputation until around 2009 and since then it has obviously suffered from a spate of accidents. In my time at Aboyne the most memorable incident was G-TIGK being struck by lightning which was hardly a flaw in the aircraft itself. The posts by some here tend to dismiss the views of the passengers on the basis that they have not taken into account the statistics around hours flown, utilisation rates, differences between AS332/EC225 etc. Obviously these things are important but you have preferred the science of statistics and mathematics over the science of psychology.
Heli pilots are probably better educated and trained than the majority of offshore workers. You are entirely focused on risk-assessment from the moment you check the weather in the morning until you sit down with your drink of choice at home in the evening. For many of you this may just be your personality, for others it might have taken the training to drill it into you. Regardless of the source, you all calculate risk on an almost subconscious level. Most of the people you transport have not been brought up (professionally) with the same approach to risk. It is taught to them on courses and in classrooms but they rarely have the imagination to think that it might happen to them - the same, unfortunately, goes for many senior executives.
Having worked on FAIs I can definitely say that, until something bad happens, most people do not think 'it' will happen to them. Many professions (pilots, lawyers, doctors etc) work on the basis that 'it' most definitely will happen to them and so they work to avoid it. If you come from this perspective then the Facebook-type baying mob is confusing and frustrating. If you come from their perspective then you don't really give a hoot whether part of the transmission system is made from gold-plated titanium or chewing-gum provided it works. Faced with a sudden increase in serious incidents over a relatively short period they will get out the pitchforks regardless of the number of datasheets you attempt to fend them off with,
My point is to suggest that it would probably serve pilots well to understand that the people behind you are a) not well versed in the actual level of risk and what you do to mitigate it and b) not in control of their own destiny to any degree when they are flying with you - just think about the last time you were a passenger in a car you thought was going too fast and went for the brake in the passenger footwell; it's not a nice feeling.
I have noticed, in conversations with my brother (who works offshore and is not keen on choppers generally) that he and many of his colleagues seem to consider the pilots as being some kind of opposition. It appears to be part of the culture and I have no idea how it has developed but it needs to be worked on by both sides if things are to improve. For the avoidance of doubt I do always point out to him that the pilots don't consider it a barrel of laughs to declare an aircraft 'tech' when they have just flown halfway across the North Sea and that they are just as keen to get home for a beer and a curry as all the passengers.