um....um...
I am still not really understanding your problem. I think perhaps it is because I have no knowledge of the EC-155 systems or there is some information I am missing in your arguement. Maybe you could expand on the background of the issue a bit more?
You state: "the problem I have currently is that upon it working as designed....the operator is confronted with a need for an engine change despite....key word ...despite no exceedence occuring"
But then you go on to infer that although "those in the know" have said that an engine change is standard with no exceedences, this particular incident "might have" involved an exceedence.
If the engine required a change due to the parameters of the incident as defined by the manual - what is wrong with that? Same same for just about every engine - when certain defined parameters are reached, change the engine. How does this differ from the 212? If the 212 worked as designed and I pulled up the collective with one engine at idle, I too could exceed parameters.
Are you saying that both engines were at "fully open" at the flight idle detent (not ground idle) and some sort of OEI training switch was inhibiting one of the engines from sharing the load and then the system allowed some sort of exceedence?
Sorry, but it makes little sense to an outsider thus far.
