It's interesting to note that (BAR)ALT hold was used - this seems to indicate a negative crossover in AP use from the L2, which has a very unforgiving 'Fly Up' mode when RADALT is coupled, leading to its use being discouraged. The EC225, on the other hand, does not have the same logic and the use of RADALT hold would seem more sensible offshore - what do the other 225 users advocate? Similarly, the IAS can remain coupled to 30 KIAS, so in reality the aircraft can be manouevred to a point pretty much coincident with a commital point, depending on wind speed of course.
Both EC and SAC are looking at developing GNSS based offshore approaches to very low minima (1/4 -1/8 of a mile) with appropriately modified AP software to allow the aircraft to remain coupled until 'LDP' (manufacturers's term.) The abilities of the AFCSs will be more akin to a SAR AFCS than the conventional current systems, with velocity hold and 'beepable' velocity vectors. It would seem that although the intended use of such procedures is to improve the current ARA for IFR ops, specifically to utilise EGNOS and WAAS, in reality the enhanced functionality required of the AFCSs would lend itself perfectly to night operations too, and I hope the regulators take note when considering such systems approval.
DB, please can we stop using this 'Call The Ball' expression? Its sounds like something from a hollywood movie
However, I fully support your general sentiments about stabilised approaches etc
