From my first post, the purpose of the post was to say that as EASA doesn't allow us to disregard PC1, theres no possibillity for a military instrument takeoff.
What you fail to do is articulate what prism you are peering through and how it affects your views on the matter.
EMS gets flown outside the EU and the UK and of course have different Rules and Regulations as well as differences in terrain weather, and other aspects of the job.
Clear example....you ignore those operations that utilize single engine helicopters and have done so since the inception of EMS in the United States and still do.
Yours is a typical failure to see beyond your own windscreen to see how it is done outside your own small pea patch.
Holding to industry best practices as you are telling us you and your Operation strive to do is commendable. Nothing wrong with that at all as you are working within the environment you live within.
However, reality is you can find yourself becoming a net loss operation that cannot survive financially or you defeat the very purpose you are there to provide if you allow those requirements to paint you into a corner.
Crab and I rarely agree upon anything but disagreeing itself but he is close to the mark in his post.
He has a background flying in an operation that did not concern itself with generating revenue and provided service under very challenging conditions....and survived to be able to post here.
Perhaps, you might slow down and think about the congregation to which you are preaching as we come from all over and some of us actually have valid insight into what we are talking about.
Safety in the Helicopter Industry seems to be a curse and rarely seen as a blessing and as a result we have the situation we do.....no matter where you are based.
Rules written on paper have no meaning unless and until they describe exactly how Operations are performed but as in most things when government gets involved the Devil is in the details.
I have done audits of SOP's and Compliance by Operations to their own Rules and Regulations and the results were quite informative usually resulting in the need to bring both the SOP and the actual practice into conformity.
Questions: Do you have any statistics for incidents where operating to PC1 standards and profiles actually prevented the loss of lives or property of third parties on the ground?
How many engine failures have occurred while using PC1 standards have occurred that harmed no one?
What is the Risk Probability that can be measured from that empirical data?
Aviation is a Risk filled endeavour but the question is what is an reasonable or acceptable risk....and in this case we are talking y about innocent bystanders the way the rule is written.
What is the acceptable risk factor and does it compute to the empirical data gleaned from actual operations and at what collateral costs?
Is there such data available from the Authority that sets the Rules for your Operation which I assume is the UK CAA.
JimL might be of great benefit to us in this as he is certainly an expert in this subject matter.