"Transport Canada, when considering this, noted all of the exemptions given to the EC-145 to allow it to be "certified" Part 29."
It may be annoying that the EC145 [aka BK117C-2] was given exemptions to achieve [near] Part 29 status but it is after all a legacy airframe and there are plenty of those in every manufacturers catalogue. Many have been upgraded in the spirit of the requirements of JAR but most still retain an Achilles heel flaw [or three] somewhere that can kill.
As Bell and MD [427 and 900] found to their cost in the mid-1990s new airframes seeking to meet the requirements of 27 and 29 do not have the luxury of getting to the finishing line by the use of dispensations. If you do not read and follow the instructions the European certification authorities do not take prisoners.
The result was - back to the drawing board for Bell, the 429, and a major revision for McDonnell Douglas to produce the 902.
I do hope that what we are seeing is not another failure by Bell to read the requirement of the JAR specifications?
Does anyone have an opinion on where the 429 might not meet JAR29 if EASA require adherence to the set weight limits?