In response to the original posting, I couldn't think of a useful or valid reason why a prudent pilot wouldn't reject, post engine failure, to a useable strip of runway straight ahead.
Apropos the other comments re vertical departures, etc. My understanding of a vertical, or helipad, departure usually dictates a fairly steep pull backwards as well as up, in order to keep the helipad ahead of the helicopter in the event of a reject back onto the deck before CDP. My experience was that this was seldom, if ever, used on offshore helidecks. The CDP on a normal departure from the hover over a NS deck is usually that close to the height AMSL, that no further vertical transition is required. The main concern was to ensure that the tail cleared the deck edge should you have to nose over to pick up Vyse following an engine failure after rotation. Fortunately the S61/Sea King never let me down, although I often wondered (worried?) about that long stretch of fuselage behind me on some departures
I do recall a brief period back around 1977 when BA S61's were departing Sumburgh main runway with a (vertical) helipad type departure, much to the amusement of other operators. Never got to the reasoning behind that
Currently I have stopped operating my BK117 from helipads at 6000ft amsl with helipad procedures, as in previous years. Experience has shown that I have about 1500ft of steep valley to fly down post engine failure to build up to Vyse, rather than the stress of a vertical, backward departure followed by an OGE transition to forward flight. Apart from being reasonably uncomfortable in some wind conditions, it became
really tedious explaining why we followed such procedures, especially to other pilots!!
