peter,
tell me about pseudonyms! I am considering stopping posting in my name, as it appears some folks think it is fair game to pin the thoughts onto a particular manufacturer, and even take pot shots from that view point.
Brian, those are not ramblings, they are well thought out positions! I do like the philosophical quotes, too. I too think the opinions of all are valuable, for those reasons.
The issue we face is that the performance margin rubs directly against the profit margin because the payload can be reduced to permit better performance. This is not a statement of greed vs good, it is physics.
What I see is that as pilots we want the CHOICE removed, so that the reduced payload is hidden in a lower MGW, sort of removing the hobson's choice from the field of consideration. An interesting problem!
I will say this, many posters have considered the law's requirement of hard Cat A as proof enough. I do not.
The European law cannot get off their duffs and approve IFR approaches for helos (by IFR for helos I mean to heliports, of course)! (I know of many operators who do their own thing, because of this!) The law can't even find it to insist on CFIT protection devices. I have asked several times for someone to show that safety and hard Cat A are connected, and all the responses simply list the regulations, as if that were proof. All the while 30% of our crashes are completely correctable with EGPWS, and 0% of the twin crashes are due to insufficient OEI performance!
That rant now having passed, I do welcome all the ideas posted here!