I think the accident rate we have seen the past years is unacceptable.
There are different types-and reasons for the accidents, but the rate is unacceptable anyway. It's starting to look like the trend that has been with in-land aerialwork in Norway for some time. But offshore-ops is a different league when it comes to regulation, redundancy, crew and crew training. There shoundn't be that many accidents. Period.
I totally understand that people are loosing faith in the 332/225 now.
Yes, the 92 has had it's accidents too, and incidents.
But WHY does this happen again and again?
And WHY would it be expected that new types will have similar accidents? I don't think that's acceptable.
An accident is very expencive. And the cost lasts for selveral years.
That's why companies and manufacturers should be more proactive to prevent accidents instead of improving AFTER the accident. Some companies do a very good job.
If you "save" money on safety, it will eventually backfire.
I'm not blaming CHC or Airbus of anything, but watch the aftermath after this accident, and see what the consequenses will be the next months.