Agusta AW139

[helmet fire]

noooby and FLI, I think you have hit the dilemma on the head.
There is reality and there is perception; the reality being that a limited CAT A machine is much more cost effective, and can be operated CAT A by those prepared for the cost penalty of reducing load. The perception is that being not full CAT A is somehow dangerous and unacceptable.

Only we as professional pilots can help to change the perception amongst both our customers and regulators - and get them to consider the reality. The cost of increasing the engine power capabilities returns a NEGLIGIBLE payback in safety. Money spent in CFIT reduction strategies returns TANGIBLE paybacks in safety. The longer we as pilots continue to promote the obsession with full CAT A, the more of us and our customers will pay the financial and human costs.

Noooby, your comparison with the S76 and 139 is spot on. If you are prepared to accept a risk that is less than CFIT and drivetrain issues by operating with the 0.17% exposure, then it is a no brainer. If however, you want a risk exposure reduced from 0.17% to nearly zero, you are wanting (or required to) to stay locked into the full CAT A scenario. If you purchased the S76 you may be in trouble if the range and payload is excessive for that type, and the 139 will be your machine. But what if the range was not excessive? Then the S76 can still do the job and your point is flawed. The point is that now the 139 is overkill. The same arguement can be had from the AS355 to the S76 as you are using from the S76 to the 139. The AS355N can happily transport 4 VIPs and full fuel in a 0.17% exposure rate. The S76 can do that same load Full CAT A. How much money is saved flying it home empty?

There are too many variables I think. But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero.

FLI, I think the 109E is a great example of the dilemma. Looks great taking off at MAUW and going full CAT A. But if they had spent more money on that overly complex cockpit interface, antiquated electrical system, potentially dangerous fuel system, and even redesgning the scissor links we would have a greater safety return on our dollar. The 109E is also a good example of full CAT A driving people to singles. The Koala has been a direct beneficiary of the cost and range of the full CAT A 109E, and even in Australia, several high net worth people have gone the Koala for those very reasons. Both look fantastic, both are an absolute pleasure to fly, go like cut snakes, and take off vertically at MAUW, and what are the chances of the PT6 coughing? It's a lot cheaper.

So the safety outcome has been 80% plus exposure to the risk rather than 0.17% for the high net worth individuals who I am sure, do not appreciate these facts. Regardless how we may feel about the benefits of all that extra power, the outcomes are not the best possible for either us, nor our customers. And only we can help to change the perceptions.

I will, however, add that as an EMS pilot the full CAT A thing is not such an intangible benefit. There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power. We too could operate a larger machine at our normal load (which is a reduced load for the large machine) to achieve this. We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)