Notwithstanding that this will raise the hornets from slumber; Nick has managed to avoid comment on Gomer Pylot's post and remark only on the aspirations of Recuperator.
Compared to Recuperator's considered approach (which is based on the practical procedures contained in JAR-OPS 3), the description of the take-off procedure in the GOM results (for me) in a sharp intake of breath.
It might first be appropriate to highlight one particular element of Gomer's post; it has been observed from flight tests that a wind of up to10kts does not give the additional lift that one would expect (hence no wind accountability in the S76C+ Category A helideck procedure for winds below 10kts). Putting the disc over the deck edge might improve on this situation but would it compensate for the loss of lift that would result from the dissipation of ground cushion? Nick probably has the answer to this.
The fact that the authors of JAR-OPS 3 settled for second segment performance (climb performance of 150ft/min at Vy at 1000ft above the take-off altitude) or AEO HOGE was no accident, it ensured that vertical acceleration would be possible and the decision to pull above a limit would not be required.
If one is already applying the take-off Tq of 100% (and going no-where vertically) what if the sudden improvement in lift, due to a transient wind, disappears at the time that the helicopter is in transition over the deck edge? Isn’t this the Las Vegas approach to performance?
How many pilots, faced with this situation, would allow the helicopter to descend rather than pull a ‘transient Tq’! This might not be reportable but is it good practice?