JimL,
Perhaps we can get Nick Lappos to remind us of the probability of a single engine failure....seems it was something along the lines of .000000008 or something like that. I would have to assume if you had two engines the probability would double that.
How do we arrive at an "acceptable risk" definition?
It would appear even the CAA admits there is no way to eliminate all risk and will accept deviations. Why would a pre-2002 heliport be eligible for continued use if it fails to meet the new requirements if risk avoidance is the basis for these regulations?
Is this not a contradiction of the CAA's own position by its own interpetation of the rules?