Shell has given the S-76D its "approval" based on the S-76 record of over 5.6m flight hours.
So where did you hear that then II?
If so it would rather undermine the whole 7/7/1 safety philosophy the Shelldroids have been promoting for 6 years or so, which is heavily biased to introducing equipment certified to the to the latest standards.
Of course the accident record of the '100% compliant' S-92 might have caused them to reconsider the benefit.
I supose you believe that if you stick to the 2003 marketing mantra everyone will forget about the MGB!
This is without absolute full FAR JAR latest amendment compliance (the D should get 93%)
93% Really? Says who?
Remember too the aircraft is not certified yet either. Plus the S-92's history tells us that problems can emerge just months before certification.
And what's that a percentage of? Individual certification clauses, safety benefit or just a meaningless statistic?
And what is the missing 7%?
By definition one might suspect they are the most recent items and therefore some of the more useful features certified on the AW139 and to be certified to the future EC175 and EC X4 (funny how you didn't mention those other competing mediums
).
Fatigue and damage tolerance of structure...minimising critical rotor and transmission failure modes...crashworthiness...30 min loss of lube test...???????????
If you are so well informed can you explain the delays in certification too?