Madrock
As DCVC has highlighted, you can rest assured that SOME oil companies will be letting Sikorsky know what they think. You can also be reasonably certain the Sikorsky are doing something in response.
The 30 minute requirement was introduced in 1988 via Amdt 26 to JAR 29. You may think this makes it outdated, however by aviation certification requirements this is still relatively new. In fact I believe there are only two heavies that have been certified against this requirement - the S92 and EC225 (I am assuming the AW139 is a medium). Technically the 30 minutes is demanding, which explains the "modifications" both manufacturers developed after the basic MGB run dry tests failed. Even the superior level of safety the EC225 glycol spray system offers, it only provides 30 minutes flight at 80 knots. So approx 40nm then it's "Land Immediately". The bottom line is that the regulators can only ask for what is technically feasible and economical (ALARP if you will). The regulators are also the policeman of the rules, so they have the say when it comes to accepting compliance. Rightly or wrongly, the FAA, EASA and Transport Canada have all accepted S92 compliance against FAR 29.927. Maybe they should be getting more scrutiny and questioning than has been seen so far regarding their decisions?
As for the internal fuel tank that Cougar have fitted. Acceptance of that is down to Transport Canada. Some regulators around the world would not permit such a fit
