Hugh,
Your question raises an interesting and important point - is the REQUIRED safety level enough?
First point: We are not talking about adding safety onto a helicopter, as in "should I install stroking seats?" We are talking about if our helicopter should meet the newest minimum safety standard, or should we ignore the latest safety rules.
Second Point: Is there value in seeking the newest, safest standards? I think so, and I do BUY my car by referencing the head injury index that is published in several sources, so that I know I don't have to wear a helmet. I also will be sure that the cars I buy have 6 airbags for front, side and glass protection for the occupant, ABS and side door structural protection. This means that my kids drive around in the reasonable safest car that can be bought.
Third Point: Do we trust the folks who set the minimum safety standards for our civil aviation authority, or do we listen to arrogance like helicomparitor, who thinks he knows better? What do I mean by arrogance? Helicomparitor would not last through three questions from those who have studied the ways to grow our industry's safety, engineers and regulators who agonize over the next step we must take, folks like JimL. These engineers who work for FAA and JAA use test and accident data, and knowledge of technical solutions to set the absolute minimum safety standard that should be met, rules that cannot be waived by new helicopters. This "debate" especially concerns me, I was the Chief Test Engineer for Sikorsky, and am intimately familiar with the percentiles of accident severity as well as the design methods to help save lives, and the economic tradeoffs that set the standards. This is NOT a competitive issue, I have repeatedly said that the AB-139 also meets this new standard, and is therefore a very worthy helicopter.