It's not often I find myself defending the CAA, but on this occasion, I think the CAA strike a reasonable balance between regulation and risk. I think the Mechanical Failure rate of Rotorways in the UK is extremely small (except the engine valve train) due to the UK requirements for qualified engineering oversight. I don't think the same can be said for other less regulated regimes.
PD - to be fair to the CAA, they haven't yet issued the Talon A600 a Permit to Fly because the engineering report they requested on the new Tail Rotor Drive system and also the Cog Belt Main Rotor drive hasn't been completed. The design engineer charged with the job, by the UK importers, has been dragging his heels - for almost 3 years! That's hardly the fault of the CAA.
To my untrianed (engineering) eye, I think the Talon tail rotor system is plain daft. More moving parts, more cost, more weight, more risk - why bother? The belt drive tail rotor is perfectly fine and indeed has proven safety advantages over a shaft drive system, particularly for an amateur assembled helicopter. The cog belt is a different story, and I welcome its arrival......when it gets approved.
JJ