HC,
If you read the AFCS thread that is currently going on re the SAR 92 that had a problem you will see I have raised the same concern as you re "Heading" control and why we still see Crews getting themselves into trouble due to the design, testing,certification and training.....but did so in a much more polite manner.
I agree with you in your concerns but it applies to far more issues than just battery wiring.
The "problem" is not isolated to one Make and Model of helicopter or to one Certification Authority or to just one Operator or Training organization.....it cuts across all of those sectors and organizations.
Question for you....what is your solution for the root cause of such decisions.....and who or which organization is responsible for seeing it gets solved much less prevented?
In this particular incident it was a Sikorsky designed and built machine, that was certified by the FAA and other Authorities, owned and maintained by Bristow, operating in Norwegian Airspace.
Pin the tail on the appropriate donkey for us.
You asked the question....offer us an answer.
Re the Heading thing I opined in my thinking the AFCS should default to the actual heading of the aircraft and any subsequent change should require a Pilot action.
I am sure there are some who attend here shall see it differently.
As to the Float system having redundant power which makes sense operationally.....somehow I can see a minor disaster happening during maintenance if switches get moved somehow while the Battery is still connected and all other power sources are not powering the system.
There are lots of factors that come into play when these "decisions" are made.
As the AFCS thread and this one have raised a similar concern re different systems perhaps a new thread focusing upon what appears to be genuine questions about built-in problems that stay with us as engineering and certification standards appear to fail to prevent such....might prove to be interesting.