FH100: This event bring some things into sharp focus. We make a Big Deal about Category A performance and how important we deem it to be. But in reality, there is still only one tail rotor and (in the case of Cougar in the North Atlantic) one main transmission. The failure of either one of those items (even though we assume the possibility to be extremely remote) can still put you in the water.
CSGS: FH, that is true, but what do you propose to do. What's your point?
Shouldn't we take care to mitigate the risks we have control over as best we can, rather than worrying about things we can't control? I don't think we can create a profile which would allow safe 'tail-rotor gearboxless' flight in all phases and call it Category X! Unless you're suggesting two main rotors and a backup tailrotor, or parachutes for all on board....
I think FH100 and CSGS both make valid, thoughtful points. First, it's disturbing when a helicopter model that is widely acknowledged to have the best OEI performance in its class ends up in the water due to failure of another critical component. Second, it's certainly prudent to develop PC1/PC2e takeoff and landing procedures to mitigate the risk associated with engine failure during takeoff or landing. Historically, the number of engine failures greatly exceeds the number of main rotor component, tail rotor component, or gearbox failures.