Performance = $$$$
This whole PC issue could be boiled down to a simple equation based on Mass Management.
At one end of the spectrum we see those who operators that mandate Cat A WAT use offshore. They believe, often mistakenly, that this is the silver bullet. They believe that Cat A will deliver 100% safe ops but as has been inferred already, the offshore environment if full of trips and traps that make using the WAT weights a good step in the right direction but in those cases where the turbulence, turbine exhausts and obstructions make even the WAT Mass too much to manage safely it will be necessary to limit the Mass further. In mature markets where this is understood there is a voluntary code (called the IVLL or Installation & Vessel Landing Limitations) that provide decrements to the WAT Mass according to defined circumstances. This removes from the market place the temptation for one operator to take on a task that another has refused on safety grounds related to mass management.
At the other end of the spectrum we see markets distorted by oil companies that are so focussed on the payload that they even encourage operators to strip their aircraft of vital equipment in order to maximise payload, they expect a 12 seat helicopter to carry 12 pax at any time of day or night in any conditions all year round. Needless to say the Transport Managers in these organisations could not even spell Cat A let alone understand it.
Clearly there is a lot to do to educate the market but in very simple terms if I was given a magic wand and invited to change one thing in our world I would make it impossible for a helicopter to take off above the Cat A WAT Mass.
G.