Crab says;
A couple of years ago it became an issue with SAR helos getting refuels on rigs, only because the refuellers couldn't cope with basic safety strategies such as being cleared into and out of the disc by the rearcrew - they just did their own thing, wandering around the TR and running the hoses under the helo without clearance.
Hugh - the anti -colls don't get turned off on a mil helo and the issue was with the helideck crew totally ignoring the aircrewman and doing their own thing, including getting too close to the tail rotor - the incidents were passed back up the chain and some re-briefing took place by the company involved.
I'm sorry, but you're the visitor to their helipad and facilities. When you land and use their facilities, YOU need to conform to THEIR procedures, not the other way round - that is how any Safety Process works. Offshore helipad SOP's are well established and operational personnel are highly trained - they also handle helicopters on a regular basis as it is the only way in and out of there.
One of the big differences is that in addition to the training for the crews working the decks, all the passengers are highly trained (including HUET trained) and familiar with helicopter operations as it is their normal commute and the normal work cycle. This environment is highly regulated, organized and trained, with an excellent safety record - but they still fail to meet YOUR demanding standards? There is certainly a responsibility for an operator to assist in deck operations with a helicopter type that is unfamiliar to the heli-deck crew, but beyond that, YOU must operate under their procedural, operational and safety protocols unless you have previously established an alternate process.
I'm glad to see that it isn't just civil flight and SAR operations that fail your critical review, but now it is also includes offshore oil installations - you really need to get out more into the real world!
And (back to the original topic), there is no evidence that properly conducted rotor running or hot refuels offer any greater risk than any other alternative.
And if you disagree, please feel free to post your evidence, unless (and I'm just guessing here) it is based upon a Risk Assessment conducted by someone with no understanding of the real world, or experience to make anything other than a paper analysis of potential risk.