Helmut Fire
You try to give the impression that you and Nick are singing from the same song but infact you are saying that OEI hover power does have real safety benefits. Quote “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.”
The very real returns that you allude to are also appreciated by paying passengers and especially by the ones who bought the helicopter. I appreciate that your exposure window is longer than for normal operations but there are many scenarios that corporate helicopters operate to that subject them to longer exposure times than airfield and oil rig take offs and landings.
Very rich people worry about their safety. It is one of those things that money can buy. They don’t want an exposure window no matter how long.
I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter! 2 engines, one to work and one as a spare. Not both working at 95 to 100% just to get airborne.
The issue of owners switching from 109E to Koala is not the fault of the helicopter being too powerful. I am sure the 109E corporate pilot would not advise his boss to switch to a Koala. Maybe operators who provide a charter service but not wealthy individuals. The regulations in many countries would hinder a Koala’s operation and reduce its flexibility (or revenue). I did hear that a very rich Australian dismissed a 76B for not going faster, not carrying more people, using more fuel and costing more to purchase than his 76A. An argument that even Sikorsky found hard to refute. The price of power was not worth it to him. Thankfully, he was the exception or we would all be flying around in old, under powered (but still Cat A) helicopters.
Nick,
The same corporate owners are the major purchasers of all the kit that helps prevent CFIT. Just look how their payload has reduced by having all this heavy and expensive equipment on board? They pay the price for safety.
How many offshore operators purchase this equipment? They do when the regulations demand it. As they will if FULL Cat A becomes the norm.
You, yourself, advocated a new type of heliport for true Cat A helicopters in congested cities. There is a commercial requirement for this power.
Can you also explain why, if the S92 is Cat A, the Presidential helicopter proposal was for a much more powerful variant? When is Cat A not enough?
FLI