HeliComparator,
Equally short:
1. The INTOPS winds are those supplied for the PC2e modelling and had a mean of 20kts (there has been no untoward manipulation). The winds shown were for the Northern and Central North Sea; if the winds for the Southern NS are included, then the mean will reduce to below 20kts. With a mean wind <20 kts, the number of exposure free operations will increase because more operations can be flown within the 180 obstacle free sector.
2. The suggestion is that the hard break (between Pure PC2 and PC2e) should be related to reported wind (at SS4), with high sea states taken into consideration only when they are at odds with the reported wind - i.e. wind has dropped but the sea is still running high (using rule of thumb). Getting this wrong (at the margin) has no serious consequence. It is also understood that a number of companies would apply PC2e at night - particularly in Norway.
3. I would agree with you that there will be little change for the EC225 (or the S-92) - because of this, simpler metrics could be applied. For the AW139 there will be no change.
3. Yes the helideck CAT A take-off profiles have been used.
When PC2e was conceived, it was not intended to add complexity to operations. The work was done in the face of the pressure to move to operations in PC1 by 2010. The alternative (PC2e) was provided to show that the 'bar' could be raised by providing a safety-net to reduce exposure ALARP - i.e a removal of unfettered exposure offshore.
Yes the EC Supplement runs to 49 pages but it is based upon two graphs with many, many examples.
It was fully accepted that the modern types that were just about to appear on the North Sea would have no problem meeting the standard (as has been demonstrated). It was also accepted that there would be an effect on older types but it was projected that most of these would have left the North Sea by 2010 (remember that this work was started in about 2002).
There were also secondary objectives. It was felt that mass growth should be tied to a performance standard - the second segment climb performance was seen as as weak metric (that is why the AEO HOGE was brought from guidance and put into the rule - for all operations with exposure). There was a need to ensure that future aircraft had a built-in level of performance for offshore operations. (The working group were mindful of a remark that had been made at the time of the introduction of exposure that, in future, installed power could be reduced accordingly.)
A number of these objectives have already been met but some have not. The introduction (of most) of the modern types has improved the situation - this is in no small part due to the introduction of the new requirement with an implementation date of 2010. Manufacturers have strived to provide aircraft that meet the 2010 standard and they are to be congratulated for that.
Jim