Back on my hobby horse for a moment (which one you ask?): Which helicopter would you rather fly, the one that loses all its oil quite regularly but has a genuine 30 mins dry running time, or the one that doesn't have 30 mins dry running time but is well designed and never loses its oil?
Personally I would prefer the latter.
The certification standards are not particularly strong in this area. They are more concerned with having a fallback mode following a failure than having no failures in the first place.
Certfication standards are written by engineers that don't actually have to fly the products, nor really understand flying.
The problem with having certification standards is that a lot of effort goes into compliance with the letter of them, sometimes at the expense of making a good product.
In other words its "paper safety" and the real goal of making a robust and reliable helicopter that does not kill people is lost in the beaurocracy.
Maybe we should have no certification standards but rely on the manufacturers fear of being sued to make a robust product? No certification standards means quicker fixes - as has been repeatedly proven, certification does not guarantee (or even make likely) a product that works properly without design flaws, but by heck it certainly slows down bringing any fixes into place to cure those flaws.
HC