Hilife:
Using your courtroom scenario above, you could of course remove SAC and insert Eurocopter, AW, Bell, MDHi etc., as all transmissions have seals and oil filter bowls/access covers and no OEM would be able to offer a 100% guarantee that oil could not leak out of their transmissions under any circumstances......EVER!
Hilife, you are absolutely correct. By itself, this would disqualify an aircraft from being fully certified under FAR Part 29.
The Bell helicopter I fly is not required to demonstrate *any* run-dry capability as it is not certified under Part 29. If any helicopter *is* certified under FAR 29 but does not comply with 29.927(c)(1) then yes we should be taking them to task as you suggest just as seriously as we do Sikorsky and their S-92. I think the actual statistical definition and applications of "extremely remote" will be a major issue in any future court actions.
The more strict requirements of Part 29 are not trivial or inconsequential. Nor should they be summarily dismissed merely because it's inconvenient to adhere to them. Thus, I find it odd that the person who calls himself "Shell Management" is so quick to do just that.