I don't wish to deflect the discussion too much away from the accident, but there was some debate about the certification basis of the EC225 earlier in the thread.
Having worked closely with Eurocopter in 2004 and 2005 evaluating the EC225, I can categorically state that the EC225 has always been treated as a variant of the older Puma and Super Puma family. The initial EASA certification on 27 July 2004 was via a TCDS that also contained the SA330 and AS332L/L1/L2.
From a pilot licence perspective, it too has always been treated as a variant under EASA. Although if you were to speak to a CAA FOTI who was involved in the development of the Operational Suitability Data document, he would probably state that it should have been classed as a different type.
I wouldn't read too much into the lineage of certification, as it is quite common. Sikorsky have done it with the S76 family. Boeing have done it with extensively with the B737 and B747 models. At the end of the day why go to the expense of completely re-certifiying elements that were certified on a previous variant!