With respect to seating limitations; there needs to be more concentration on the solution. If adequate mitigation is provided, there will be no reduction in seating capacity. The Canadians have already moved to the solution that is required by the CAP - that solution is therefore available now.
To my knowledge, there is no immediate action to mandate breathing devices it is, at this time, the means of mitigation for the projected seating reduction (for the purpose of increasing breath-hold for escape for those who are not seated immediately adjacent to an escape means). The standard is contained in a CAP - i.e. guidance material.
For operational limitations associated with certification for ditching; we in the helicopter offshore safety and survivability committee (HOSS) made it quite clear more than a decade ago that certification at SS 6 should be the standard for offshore operations in a hostile environment. That this was resisted by a number of parties (including one major regulator) was a thorn in the side of proactive policy. The chickens have now come home to roost.
When it comes to automation issues; it is not a case of too much or too little but one of an appropriate level to ensure maximum efficiency/safety. However, as was pointed out in the reference shown earlier, there is an issue of automation dependency - this is not a new phenomenon, it was extensively researched and written about by Billings and others in the early 1990s. It was also pointed out in that and subsequent reports (including the recent report on "Operational Use of Flight Path Management Systems").
The introduction of automation brings with it additional (and sometimes unique) challenges. Some of these have recently been observed and promulgated - for example in the Cougar 851 report. However, it is noteworthy that there has been little recognition that the issues identified in fixed wing translate directly across to automation in complex helicopters. Was this subject aired in any of the comprehensive SINTEF reports? It is clear that automation is on a growth path in complex helicopters and we need to acknowledge that. Our culture of operations needs to change (and we are seeing that already in the debate on best practice SOPs); along with that, and as also mentioned in the early reports, the introduction of automation does not come cheap in terms of human factors. There needs to be a comprehensive review of training regulations to ensure that they are based upon competency and not time/tick box lists.
We, as pilots, also have a responsibility to understand automation and its associated advantages/limitations. It is clear from musing on recent threads (not just in offshore operations) that we continue to be baffled by displays and input devices. There are a number of reasons for that some of which are associated with the actual design - it is not exactly human-centric - a subject which is also discussed extensively and not just in aviation.
That is the basis for the conference to which I referred earlier.
Jim