This demonstrates the crass stupidity of the JAA LSST(H) in developing the definition of a multi-pilot helicopter and the the equallly crass incompetence of EASA in not correcting the original error. If a helicopter is certified for operation by one pilot and the type rating course and, more importantly, the LST is performed single pilot then the UK, at least, issues a single-pilot helicopter type rating without restriction. The privileges of this type rating, according to JAR-FCL 2, are 'to act as pilot of the type of aircraft specified in the rating'. There is no mention of single-pilot or multi-pilot operations, simply 'to act as a pilot'.
Now, consider a scenario - I hold a type rating on the S76, which is certified as a single pilot helicopter. The course and LST were conducted in a single-pilot environment and, consequently, I have not received nor did I require any MCC training prior to the type rating course. My type rating, issued by the UK CAA, entitles me to act as a pilot (in any capacity) on the S76. Consequently, I can operate an S76, either as PIC or Co-pilot in a multi-pilot environment (subject to completing an approved Operator Conversion Course and meeting any experience requirements in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 if it is a public transport operation) without completing MCC training despite the fact that JAR-FCL 2 defines the S76 as a multi-pilot helicopter in those circumstances.
The AW139 is in exactly the same situation, being certified for single pilot operation in VFR. There is no provision in either JAR-FCL 2 or EASA Part-FCL for retrospective MCC training in the event that a pilot changes roles and so the requirement for MCC (except in the case of helicopters certified for more than one pilot) is entirely unenforceable and, therefore, utterly pointless. It stands as a monument to the ineptitude of those formulating the rules that will strangle our industry.
This situation may not endure, however, as it is rumoured that EASA intends, through its JOEB structure, to mandate specific training requirements type by type, irrespective of the certification status of the individual aircraft and the requirements of Part-FCL. I suppose that's one way to give European manufacturers an edge - make it cheaper and easier to train on a Eurocopter than a Sikorsky or Bell product.