Nick:
Whilst most of us can contemplate a rational discussion of PC2 v PC1 in areas where there are no third party risks; and, under some circumstances, measure the arguments for and against PC2 ‘with exposure’ - the fact that a single can lift more than a twin is a non sequitur.
We are straying from a discussion of whether it is technically feasible and economically justifiable to eliminate/limit exposure to engine failure in the take-off and landing phases to one where the flight is always exposed to an engine failure. I’m not sure FLI’s customer base will welcome the improvement in range that is based on swapping two engines for one.
As has been pointed out in recent posts, PC2 with exposure is limited in time and space and could be part of a Risk Assessed departure/arrival regime - we (with some certainty) know: the maximum extent of the exposure; the probability of engine failure; and can assess the consequences of that failure; both in immediate terms for this phase, and in the medium and long term on our business (be it a one-man-band or a multi-national oil company).
What comes as a surprise to all of us is not ‘driving looking in the rear view mirror’ but the attempt to ‘put the car into reverse’. We already know that the EC225, AS332L2, S92 and S76 can operate in PC1 and to their credit the latest marks of the EC135, A109, MD902 and AB139 can do it in spades.
FLI may have not moved from his starting point - he knows what his customer wants; what is puzzling us is the direction of your movement.