Hilife - some good points but marred by a few too ...
When dispassionately observed by a neutral bystander, it is obvious that the S92 doesn't meet FAR29.927. That it still retains its certification is only down to politics and economics.
If your argument that the S92 is "best in class" is based on a Sikorsky press release, could you please send me some of what you are on, it seems fun.
As to the Newfoundland crash being an accident only as a result of the pilots' incorrect actions, there is some truth in that but bearing in mind the weather, it seems unlikely that a ditching in accordance with the RFM wouldn't have resulted in some loss of life. What riles in that accident is that Sikorsky knew perfectly well that the MGB didn't have the required dry run ability and yet they pushed it hard both in their publicity and on here as having it. If they didn't lie directly, there was clearly intent to mislead. We will never know to what extent this influenced the pilots' decisions.
I am not trying to make out that the 225 is wonderful and the 92 is a dog from a safety point of view (only from an operational point of view!) but both types have had fatal accidents, both types have had a few "near misses" any of which could, but for luck, have been fatal. So I don't see a big difference in their airworthiness. Where the 225 lost out to the 92 was only in that the rotor head detachment was caught on video whilst the 92 smashing into a raging ocean wasn't. And if we look at the most likely cause of the next accident - pilot error - the 225 wins hands down in its level of pilot-supporting automation vs the 1980s autopilot tech in the 92.