Finally as to the scientific analysis bit the safety reviews ongoing have a simple choice: do they want to have a look at the tip of the iceberg, i.e. the crashes that have occurred and address those specific problems or do they want to have a look at the whole iceberg. The bit below the waterline is stuff that hasn't happened yet but might. Some of the things that may be part of the submerged iceberg might be issues that are raised here: bow decks, etc. You can take these pilot concerns on board or not, it is entirely up to you. If, however, you want scientific analysis to support these concerns you will probably have to wait for a future AAIB report with bodies attached.
A bit harsh RJC, there have been plenty of scientific studies conducted which have not been prompted by an accident (helideck lighting?)
There seems to be a hatred of the customer by NS pilots, these discussions always seem to generate into "customers need to pay more" or the transport budget is only x% etc (which is a very over simplistic argument).
It's your helicopter companies you should be talking to. If there are genuine safety issues which need to be addressed, then ask your companies to address them with improved technology or procedures. Industry will pay, passengers will demand it.
So instead of blaming the oil companies, look inward, you might be surprised at what you see. If you want runways, go and fly a plane because you are in the wrong business.