PD good post, glad you will stand up and be counted.
The 30 minute claim?? in the sales literature is very loose wording leaving you to make of it what you will.
.EF reminds us of the TCDS and says no mention of run dry yet there is a caption on sales literature pointing strongly in that direction, it would be in the back of my mind that things were not as bad as they seem.
S25s post
"Is it not the case however that the S-92 was never proven to meet these requirements ? I'm sure that was the original plan, but when testing proved that it didn't meet the spec, they were able to certify the aircraft without the dry running ability under the 'Unless such failures are extremely remote" loophole. ( there is either a requirement or not ) & as it failed to meet the requirement surely the failure in not a remote possibility
So whilst these definitions are clear and seemingly well thought out, the S-92 was able to get certified without meeting them. ".