thanks for the clarification
and the cogent argument.
however;
Modern engines (T700/RTM322/T800 etc) are isonchronously governed using NR as the prime control law which means they have no droop characteristics down to 0% Tq and sit at the governed Nr in autorotation (same as when power on). The case you specify is akin to an autorotation and I agree that in that case rotor speed is just down to rotor pitch control, (the engines by definition not doing anything) but that's true in any autorotation scenario. It may be that the specified target AUM for the Flynx using the existing rotor system is too high for that type of manouevre to be carried out, I guess only time and flight testing will tell (from a quick search the Flynx AUM is beyond any existing variant AUM)
It would appear that the only thing to do would be to;
a) train the pilots better (!!) or
b) to increase the inertia of the disc to prevent a rapid split off (this may happen if the blades change in the future but that's not going to happen soon).
c) limit the aircraft mass until b) happens if a) doesn't work because as Scotty says 'Yae cannae change the laws of physics' and converting descent energy into rotor speed MUST add kinetic energy to the disc.
The improvement in helicopter technology is there (BERP4 for instance) and some is being incorporated (crash worthiness, FADEC) but again the MoD arent prepared to pay for it all yet (the spectre of limited funding rears it's head again).
I dont follow the statement 'presenting the IPT with a 'solution' to a problem in meeting the required capability' as being a problem, surely that's what they are meant to do (my underlining) and as long as the requirement is met (which means it isn't a compromise, it's spec compliance)then it's good business practice.
DM