If a total loss of oil occurs, you comply with the RFM and land immediately.
With the added proviso that in the case of the 92 it should be less than how many minutes?
Given that as far as we are aware from the poor statistical sample of about 2 occurrences - one in a test cell and one for real -
both achieved ~ 11 minutes. Lets put a margin in for error of 50% which is generous and round it down - 5 minutes.
Also not forgetting that on the Cougar flight most of the 11 minutes would have been power off or low power in a rapid descent from altitude.
As the failure was primarily in the TR output you could probably have a failure regardless of the power level.
Another issue on the Cougar incident was the pre-occupation with the fact that the oil temperature remained normal. This is a fallacy that has been perpetuated for years that low or no oil will give you high oil temperature. Theory and experience would prove the exact opposite or it has no correlation. Yet it is still preached.
These guys were looking at an "extremely remote" event and making up for it as they went.
The 92 has had quite a few "extremely remote" events and incidents where "cry wolf" was patched up and lulled a lot of people into the wrong frame of mind.
"Extremely remote" has been redefined if you are looking for an example as it clearly does not meet the alternative.