spinwing, i agree with what you are saying to a point. As i explained the abbreviation SAR should not be used unless you go all the way. I do however see no problem with the 130 in it's HEMS role. Might only have one engine (with 3 independant digital controls I might add), dual hydraulics, fenestron which increases gnd safety and lessons tail rotor failure possibility, mGB from the 355/350 line up with millions of hours etc. Without getting stuck on the single engine scenario do a full safety case into modern engine failure especially say on the 350 and EC130 range using the correct fleet hours and work out the rate of probability vs other probabilities. I hear what you say, but I will much rather be in a 130 hot and high with comfortable crew and patient than in a more (not many cabins beat the 130 in EMS for size)cramped light twin where I wonder how many times that 2nd engine, if that is all we are concerned about for failures, will really at EMS weights hot and high take me much further than the 130's single. To increase the standard of patient and crew comfort and safety and care in a 130 I would look at nothing smaller than a 76C+, N3 Dauphine, 109grand just making the list due to space and 145 and upwards.