The same old cr@p is surfacing in this thread about the Bagger crash.
"Para 101 - It is considered by the Board that the HISLis not fit for purpose and non-compliant with the requirement in DEF STAN 00970 Vol 2 para 2.1 (Enc. 42), in that the it should be located so that the emitted light shall not be detrimental to the crew's vision."
That is a statement written by an imbecile.
The light from the HISL is not directly visible by the pilot. In common with all Seaking helicopters, it reflects back up off the water or from precipitation. This is irritating so we used to turn it off. The previous light was less irritating because it was dimmer, but we still turned it off, but even when it was on it was less effective because, erm, it was dimmer. The HISL was brought in to enhance safety, and I think it does.
Helicopters don't have wingtips. If you want it to shine forward then it has to be on the front. If it is on the front then there will be reflection and diffusion through precipitation.
Anyway, the pilots called visual.
End of.
The embodiment of the HISLs on Seaking 7 was perfectly reasonable without a separate trial because the trial had been done on the 6.
Common sense is not a bad thing. The 6 and the 7 are to all purposes identical with respect to effects of lighting, except if anythin a 7 is far less likely, due to it's profiles to encounter the reflected light. As it happens, when the crashed they were flying in a 6 type profile, so the 6 trial was perfectly adequate.