helicomparitor it is you who try to mislead by misrepresenting the law. The regulation is NOT met by the 225, because the 225's design cannot and does not meet the turbine burst requirements, laws that were changed after the terrible Super Puma turbine burst accident that cost so many lives.
helicomparitor said,
"Nick I do wish you would stop lying about the EC225. You said "the 225 does not meet this new turbine burst requirement"...which you know to be a lie because you have seen the TCDS - even posted it on Pprune- you know there is no grandfathering on the engines."
The above proves your ignorance about regulations, hc, because the requirement is for the
airframe, not the engines, to take the brunt of a burst. The 225 does NOT meet the requirement, the EC 225 ducks the requirement by
claiming that the engine does not burst, and not by assuring that the aircraft can withstand the burst. This is the same old story they gave before the Super Puma accident that caused the regulation to be changed!
The shot you give of the S92 (thank you for that, it is my slide!) shows that the S92 engine burst zone
avoids the controls, transmission and servos. You are not capable of knowing that the rotor blades are qualified to take a 23mm HEI hit in the worst angle, and so are not threatened by the burst, but that is just another piece of your ignorance, so we understand.
Here is a shot of the Super Puma's burst zone, for comparison. Note that the controls, blades, servos and transmission are all threatened by the engines:
