That's just it though, Sanus - you get what you pay for!
Hence, if I decide to buy some cheap mountaineering equipment and go for a hike up Everest, then I can reasonably expect that my subsequent death from exposure was due to my tight wallet: I got what I paid for instead of buying the expensive kit that all the expert mountaineers recommended me to buy, due to its top of the range technology etc.
So let's apply that model to helicopters; only this time, I'm bringing along a budding employee to my Everest expedition. Sure, he's had all the training etc, but unless I provide him with the best kit...
Now of course, I'm not for a minute suggesting that our colleagues are being flown from platform to platform in Acme Helicopters Ltd products; today's choppers are developments of millions of flying hours etc. But here's another question: are these choppers designed from the ground up for offshore applications? If they are, then any accident as a result of technical failure can only be seen as a failure of the aircraft and its manufacturer: it is simply not fit for purpose. If the answer is no and these choppers are modified to operate in world's harshest environments (i.e. offshore), then the operators ought to be bloody ashamed of ourselves for allowing their people to set foot in sub-optimal solutions. Either way, we clearly do not have a fit-for-purpose solution.
As I said above: one technical-induced accident is a tragedy; any more is unacceptable.
So in essence, when I step onto a helicopter in order to be transported to my place of work, I should damn well hope that my boss hasn't 'got what he's paid for' with his helicopter!
At the risk of derailing the thread, we cannot know what went wrong until the full report has been released, but for the time being, I think we as an industry have every right to make a damn big fuss about a persistent re-occurring issue which results in some kid's Dad not coming home at night.