Well, it seems the technical information is all available. The operators that fly helicopters because their start and/or end points aren't runways, seem satisfied with the limited exposure argument. The operators that spend a significant amount of time in the hover seem to want the OEI performance.
That doesn't surprise me. However, in the end, helicopter design is not about what can be done or what is desired, but what can be sold. Regulations not conscience are the forebearer of safety, so until the regulations are in place, I doubt any operator is willing to pay the huge cost of providing this safety performance.
I think a helicopter company should design a twin that outperforms 412, 76, etc. in their typical roles, and has full envelope OEI. Before marketing this machine, the company should lobby all the regulatory boards and insurance companies to demand this. Then us poor operators would be left with no choice but to fly safe expensive machines.
Seriously though, I have no problem with a limited exposure argument as long as the mission can be flown as such. Use a very long line, a light helicopter, etc. I can't think of anyway of making SAR any safer since a higher hover means more time with a man on the hoist...injury more likely than an engine failure. Although we do try to give ourselves time to 'drop' the man, cut cable and fly away.
Matthew.