Hi HC,
As you know from our previous discussions, there is nothing new in my posts I am merely using data that is currently available, and restating other facts.
All aircraft use the existing wind measuring equipment to apply the limitations contained in the HLL. Will that change? Probably not. Even at this time JAR-OPS, permits the operator to take advantage of an improved wind factor - surely that is an incentive to improve this equipment. In order to strengthen your argument, you have a tendency to make assumptions that were not part of any proposal. Why was it do you think that the authors went to such trouble to emphasize the difficult nature of the offshore environment? Your whole argument depends upon something that you state you wish to avoid - confusion between PC1 (and the Category A procedure) and PC2e.
As you will have seen from the mass caculations, your previous statement about the knock-on effect on passenger loads was something of an exaggeration. With regard to a change of wind, such conditions already apply; what would you do now if you were operating an EC155 and the wind dropped from 10kts+ to 5kts? Would you apply the 300kg reduction in payload?
You should already know the answer to your final question because it is specifically mentioned in the ACJ; after discussion of a number of issues which affect the profile, it states:
"Under these circumstances, the Commander might adjust the profile to address a hazard more serious, or more likely, than that presented by an engine failure"
A number of your scenarios link the application of PC2 with other issues - one of which was fuel calculations. The calculation of fuel is completely independent of performance, it should be based upon safety, the company SOPs, and be compliant with the requirements - one of which is the ability of the Commander to add fuel for contingencies. This calculation comes before any load is offered to the customer. In any case, the masses shown above should not create a seismic shift in fuel policy (unless it is not currently based upon calculation but on a fill-it-up mentality).
Perhaps I sense a change in tone; we are now discussing the implementation of the rule and not non-compliance.
I find your statement:
Now EU Ops is all up for grabs
somewhat frivolous and naive. No changes were proposed (in performance) from JAR-OPS; I am also reliably informed that there were
no objections to the AL5 changes in the comments to the NPA for offshore operations.
Perhaps the oil companies need to examine the facts with regard to compliance and performance and not be swayed by emotive arguments that cannot be substantiated. What price ALARP - are we confusing practical with convenient?
More later but consider this; if Pure PC2 (as described in my previous post) is employed, it will remove the probability of deck-edge strike from about 70% of offshore movements (take-off and landings). With a wind in the 180 sector, PC2e will remove the probability of a deck-edge strike and ditching in high sea states. How do they rate as safety benefits?
Stop just thinking EC225 and consider all helicopters.
Jim