There was mention of the use of PC2DLE in Hems and O&G. Excused under the banner of Public service/use.
Can we just be very clear on one thing.
PC2DLE is used because the machine is simply not viable in whatever role it flies if flown PC1 - or can’t fly PC1. It is a marketing tactic, based on logic and data sets.
PC2DLE is a method to extract as much use as possible out of an ageing design.
It is a commercial consideration - not a safety-based one.
There is an air Ambulance Service in the North of England which is authorised to fly PC2 to rooftop hospital helipads - within congested areas (As365n2)
This is despite there finally being PC1-capable machines available for use.
We have seen the O&G sector slowly catching-up with reality and public opinion with the implementation of genuine PC1 machines.
Manufacturers clung onto grandfather rights and old designs for far too long as they had a ready market under the Public Service/use banner.
So who ‘carries the can’ where there is a readily-available PC1 option but the operator continues PC2 operations?
The Accountable Manager is covered by the National Aviation Authority and insurance policy?
The NAA is covered by lack of civil service accountability and bureaucracy?
So, when the Safety Plan is based on ALARP, and the CBA is based on a possible increase of insurance premium rather than genuinely mitigating the risk, you know that safety is rarely an operators’ first priority.
So have as many, or as few engines as you like - it is not the issue.
The ‘foot selfie’ 350 into NY waters would not have happened if same trip flown in a twin - simply because the fuel cocks are in the ceiling in the 355.
It would not have happened if the 350 was designed for such a role - ie, true protection of critical areas from ‘Joe Public’.
We all know that Helicopters are a compromise but can I suggest that it can not afford to be regarded as such. ‘Multi-role’ designs have no place in today’s market as we have discovered that ‘multi -role’ really does mean not truly fit for anything specific.
I am not a Kamax salesman ;-)
I further suggest that if the OEMs had designed and built a true O&G Helicopter all those decades ago then the world for a helicopter passenger would be a safer place today.
The ‘helicopter transport’ budget for O&G companies is minuscule in comparison to the rest of their spreadsheet and yet continuous ‘CBA’ pressure has helped to stifle technical and safety progress - and tolerated by NAAs.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
There has been little ‘will’ and therefore a lack of ‘way’.
This situation is markedly different to the airline industry.