Shawn,
I described the "modified Cat A" takeoff in my post and for a quick repeat....the operator and the oil company mutually agreed to the modification and led the local DCAA to believe all was well. Thus your concern with compliance with the letter of the law was taken care of.
The salient point of my post was to take issue with the idea that accepting a rejected takeoff to a river or canal constitutes knowingly and with malice aforethought....what would in any other situation be known as an "emergency ditching".
That decision was predicated upon the customer's objection to spending the money required to bulldoze and grade the appropriate area for reject areas while at the same time claiming to be using Cat A performance.
As a Test Pilot and Instructor of Test Pilots, I would think you would be more immediately concerned with actual performance versus theoretical performance, and constructing your test flights to conform to test parameters in order to be able to determine if the aircraft is operating as designed or expected.
To declare the use of rivers and canals as reject areas flys in the face of the normal criteria used to define reject areas....ie..firm, smooth, even surfaces.
Last time I checked...4-5 degrees above the equator at sea level and an average temperature variation of 30 degrees C plus or minus 10 degrees...water remains unfirm .
So, Shawn....what's a working pilot to do, when confronted with such issues....letter of the law met, company SOP and Ops Manual dictates the procedure, checkrides require compliance, and the whole time, both customer safety staff and company safety staff sign off on the procedures?
Or...am I completely missing the point and intentional landings in a river or canal while conducting Cat A operations with emergency float equipped aircraft are both safe and acceptable under the constructs and criterion for Cat A operations? (as defined by that particular DCAA, oil company, and helicopter operator)