Also IIRC off-shore a towering take-off was acceptable because officially all take-offs and landings were visual, no matter what time of day or night.
Is the Rule the Rule except when it is not the Rule?
Not wishing to detract from this accident and the loss of life but we have been doing many of these procedures for 40-50 years: surely someone must have considered their use in onshore ops?
The Military using different "Rules" have done just that and have done these kinds of Take Offs both in training and in real life.
How many "Brown Out" Take Off's have Chinook and Black Hawk Pilots done in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past Ten Years, including doing Underslung Loads?
Onshore we are confronted with conforming to the "Rules".
In the USA, we suffer from an FAA that is Fixed Wing focused and who have a system of Rule Making that generally adds to existing Rules rather than going back to a Zero Based Solution and starting over to arrive at a completely new Rule that incorporates improvements and advances in Technology and Science. As a result far too many limitations are placed on Helicopters purely as a result of the "Rule" being crafted around Airplane capabilities and thus limit the versatility of the Helicopter.
Compound that by the lack of "Helicopter" IFR infrastructure such as low altitude airways and ATC capability then the Helicopter Industry is knee capped by the System.
Nick Lappos has done extensive Flight Testing to validate such a capability and has been an advocate for the creation of such a system. I have seen a couple of his Presentations on that Topic and appreciate his forward thinking about the concept.
Lappos is thinking about a complete IFR system and not just a single simple Take Off Technique which would only be a part of the overall program.
One procedure, one muscle memory, one picture on the instruments significantly contributing to the success of the procedure.
Poorly worded I would say but the intent is correct. One Procedure but the rest is full of variables that are known and predictable thus easier to cope with as a result. For an example, lightly loaded Aircraft, 40 knots of wind on the nose compared to a Maw Weight Aircraft and zero Wind. It is the same procedure but much difference in the way the aircraft handles and performs.