It sounds as if the Chinook is required once again.
Lorimer
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that a former pilot would even suggest using the BV 234 for today`s offshore personnel transfer requirements. I can still recall the uproar and the workforce response that got them banned in the first place. For me the sheer number of potential loss of life in a non-military environment would be too great a risk, I`m pretty sure the oil companies and operators would end up at the same conclusion.
Out of curiosity I did a quick Google on the type and found this story...
Peru Helicopter Crash Leaves 5 Americans, 2 Others Dead
The point I`m making is that it`s not just the aircraft type that can be the issue, from a 30,000 feet point of view it`s always down to how procedures are created, followed, and how lessons are learned from experience. The common denominator in all these factors is the human factor, where wrong decisions, unknown or otherwise, determine the final outcome.
IMHO to move forward from where we currently are as both PAX and pilots, indeed the whole aviation industry, we need to do a cold eye review of our current operating mode and determine a logical way forward that is mutually beneficial to all parties. The current high spirits on the public media outlets is not helping matters.
Safe flying
Max