Blimey JimL, you are on a roll!
Just picking up on your "apocalyptic" comment at the end of your first post, neither the introduction of PC2e, nor the non-introduction of PC2e would be apocalyptic. However I suggest that there is little point in changing established procedure and introducing additional complexity unless a clear safety benefit can be identified.
Both the probability of an engine failure on takeoff or landing causing a crash/ditch without PC2e, and the probability of one of my "apocalyptic scenarios" occuring with PC2e, are very slight. However it has to be said that the former has never occured in the history of the N Sea, whereas the latter has occurred from time to time, in at least 1 case with fatal consequences.
So which ever path is finally taken, there will be little effect on overall safety. My point is why make a change for change's sake when the previous sentence is true? And without any proper analysis so far, it might well turn out that in fact the introduction of PC2e reduces overall safety.
But this argument is probably unanswerable with current information.
So how about:
If PC2e relies on accurate offshore wind data for performance calculations, will all offshore installations have to have approved wind measurement equipment/locations? (currently they are not approved as far as I am aware).
If I am shuttling and have arranged my fuel / arrival and departure weights to be within PC2e limits for the current offshore reported wind and client load, but whilst I am on deck for the normal 15 mins or so, the wind drops a bit so now I am over weight, what should I do? Bump passengers?
If I have that (admittedly never yet experienced) engine failure on rotation and clip the tail on the deck edge, spin into the water and kill someone, and its discovered in the investigation that I rotated 0.5 seconds (4ft) too early compared to the profile used to calculate deck edge clearance, will I go to prison?
HC