Hi Tees,
The regulations are in transition - from JAR-OPS to EASA OPS. During the final throes of the JAA a number of policy decisions were made that have found their way into the new regulation. For that reason (and for simplicity) it is probably better to look at what will be rather than what was.
In general, the application of the performance code for HEMS now mirrors that for CAT with two exceptions:
1. For a HEMS Operating Site (the scene) in a congested hostile environment (built-up area), PC2, with exposure, is permitted (if approval has been sought and given). At all other HEMS Operating Sites, there are no restrictions on performance.
2. Operations at a public interest site (a hospital at a congested hostile environment) are permitted with the mitigation specified.
In concert with all CAT (Part CAT), operations with exposure will have to meet the appropriate requirements including engine monitoring (for HEMS the approval process is simplified).
Operations to an elevated heliport (in any class) are permitted if there is no third party exposure. For example, operations to Battersea.
Under the circumstances being considered in this thread, PC1 would only be required when operating to a heliport in a congested hostile environment. Under all circumstances, a PC1 heliport would have to be fitted with such lights and visual aids that are prescribed by the State (for the moment Europe does not exercise competence on this matter).
The notion of operating PC1 (with a CAT A procedure) to an unimproved and unsurveyed site at night is risible (protection is imaginary). Flying a CAT A procedure at an unimproved site affords little protection; better that a risk-assessed procedure (for that site) which minimises exposure, is used.
Jim