I completely understand that the procedure was 'within the defined and certified operational envelope' - my question was whether or not it was 'normal' in terms of how others had observed this and similar aircraft taking off from this location in similar circumstances before. Equally, I didn't mean to suggest that - even if the procedure was 'abnormal' in those terms, it was the cause of the accident.
I was really wondering if there could have been a perceived anomaly in the performance/response or any other aspect of the aircraft (that we can't see) that might have lead to the pilot wanting to gain more height that 'normal' and that, if so, whether this might give any clues as to what subsequently caused the apparent catastrophic failure (that we can see).
The only 169 profile suitable to this stadium which factors obstacle clearance is the variable TDP helipad. The TDP is 115ft + the height of the obstacle in your takeoff path so I’d guess a minimum of 250-300ft. The single engine failure before TDP is a not an overly ‘dynamic’ manoeuvre unlike some types. You need good references through the chin window and you fly back down the same path with up to 192% TQ available.
TDP - is just that, a "decision point", before it you come back down after it you can fly away and achieve the
MINIMUM clearance to obstacles. If you continue climbing about the only thing that changes is the obstacle clearance gets larger.
So what?