Nick said
Extremely remote is the chance of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards.
But that is not the case. The chances of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards in their entirity is nil as anyone glancing at the TCDS can tell. What is not so obvious is that the S92 does not meet them either - it just pretends to meet 29.927. At least the 225 is honest about it.
The dry running is a pretty clear cut case (RFM says land immediately) but the interesting question is "which of the other more esoteric requirements of JAR 29 does the S92 in fact not meet" when you examine more closely?
HC