Sans, two observations re your comments on the 92 box: 1) the reason for connecting it to the UH-60 box was that the similarity of configuration was no coincidence: the underlying design strategy for that box was that it had to be retrofittable to what was hoped to be a growth UH-60* ( now the JMR class ), and 2) there is one rather important difference between the boxes in that the S-92 box has the primary servos mounted on it, thus takes all the servo steady and vibratory loads.
*In fact that is stated in black and white on the Euro Patent paperwork available if you do a search online.
But back to the Fadec1 theory current to this discussion. There have been four rather significant failure events in the past couple of years:
1. AH Gearbox issue/crash(s)
2. SA Run-dry issue/crash
3. AW 609 crash
4. Bell 525 crash
Fadec1 attributes the recent problems to accountants and inept management while giving the engineers a pass. So four major companies suffer the same absence of talent in those areas but none of those issues were affected in part or whole thru human error by human engineers? My observation has been that making helicopters is a team project and a detailed look into the causes behind each of these situations would reveal mistakes or omissions were made similarly. Another associated thought: when I wrote " mistakes ", it wasn't in the sense of someone screwed up and put down 2 + 2 = 3.95. The technical areas involved in these crashes isn't engineering 101 material, so a bit of slack might be afforded the engineering groups.