Gray
It's always a problem when the discussion is about the latest generation of helicopters for they appear to have some divergent design characteristics. Airbus use one philosophy and AW another and from what I understand Sikorsky is somewhere in between. Bell may well have another when we get to know the '555' a little better.
Comparing them with previous generations is where we run into problems for those brought up on those machines will find it difficult to take on board the news that you must change your technique as well as your prejudices about how to interact with automation.
The AW139 is designed to be flown using maximum automation. It is capable of single pilot operation so this has influenced the designers. Airbus, I believe, has a very sophisticated autopilot and so should also be operated in a way that makes most use of the automation.
To apply the techniques of the previous generation of helicopters to the current one is not recommended so I would tend to favour the early use of automation during the departure but the key here is that the example used by EHEST resulted in a near miss because automation was used incorrectly. Had the crew received proper training then they would have understood this.The reality is that a night offshore take off is a high risk event requiring the pilot to use maximum skill to achieve a safe departure. On a moonlit night you wonder what the fuss is about but when the opposite is the case we are forced by custom and practice to treat it as routine.
These days we have at last admitted that it was a bad idea to fly around over a Sea State 6 with floatation equipment certified for Sea State 4. Will we one day have a night operating limit that takes account of the Vmini limitation and restricts such flights to genuine night VMC?
G.