Hard Core Category A?
The concept of complete protection from engine failure was discussed in a previous thread, lets kick it off here.
One side says that the engine is prone enough to failure that it is wise to design a helicopter that has complete coverage of its flight path so that engine failure can occur without probability of a mishap. Let's call this hover to hover or "full Cat A".
The other side says that a limited exposure where an engine failure can result in a hard landing is acceptable, as long as it can be shown that the probability of an engine failure in that exposure time is as slight as the other kinds of failures that can happen to a helicopter. Lets call that "limited exposure."
It is my belief that the ability of a helicopter to land on a small heliport or rig helideck with full Cat A will reduce payload substantially, so that the economics of the operation would be strongly impacted, and also that such full Cat A would not increase the actual safety of the operation, as long as limited exposure rules were applied.
It has been compared to jet airplanes, where full Cat A equivilents are had regularly. I contend that they are actually a special case, because the turbojets that are used to cruise at 30,000 feet have enormous thermodynamic power potential at low altitudes, so the Cat A is actually free to the design. Furthermore, if we asked that plane to take off full Cat A from a small airfield, we would then hear similar squawks from the designers.
I also contend that actual accident data for helicopters that have good enroute Cat A capabilities, but not full Cat A are subject to many more prevalent causes of accident, and we should spend the next dollar fixing those first. The money and economic damage wrought by full Cat A would actually reduce the safety of the operation, since the money that might have bought EGPWS and weather radar and TCAS and GPS precision approaches would be diverted to the engines instead.
Let the games begin!