Firstly, no apologies for taking this personally, the chief pilot was a friend.
My only printable comment is on the massive disparity between the commercial interests in this case and how they would have been dealt with if the heli was a private machine. The difference being that the customer doesn't have clout.
We are all told to believe that the maintaining engineer's judgement prevails. It certainly does if the blades on any private machine had suffered damage of any kind as serious as a lightning strike. Scrapped without question, no discussion allowed and on a two bladed machine, replace both as a pair. Whinge as much as you like, they won't listen to how you can't afford replacements, and quite right too.
So, tell me, if a commercial machine carries eleven brave young men with families, why the criteria should be any different? A naive question of course, but it illustrates starkly the hypocrasy which operates at this level. Whether the 'repair' should have been willingly carried out or whether it was not done properly is not the only issue. Whilst the blame appears to be directed against those who did this work, can we stop to question any company who with expert knowledge asks for 'repairs' like this to be carried out ?