I did some analysis from the NTSB database for the date range chose by AA above. It does make some interesting reading. Unfortunately the NTSB don't classify foreign accidents by operation which they do for US aircraft so it is not possible to validate the differences between them.
If you compare RHC to Bell (understanding they make different tools for different jobs) what you find is the following:
121 accidents (incl fatal) and incidents for RHC globally to 117 for Bell.
Of these 26% were fatal for RHC and 28% for Bell, fairly close.
65% of RHC accidents and incidents were US-based but the US only had 19% of fatal accidents.
68% of Bell accidents were US with 36% of the fatal accidents - which aligns to the % of the civil market the US has.
Interesting stuff but if you can't correlate this with the utilisation of the fleet no conclusions can be drawn.
What is more meaningful is how the US accidents are distributed across the various operations and how RHC compares to Bell in this regard.
For RHC 89% of accidents are related to part 91 GA with 100% of the fatalities.
1% are part 135 commercial ops and 9% part 137 agricultural.
Of Bell accidents 43% are part 91 GA (50% of the fatalities) , 11% part 135 (17% of the fatalities), 34% agricultural (25% of the fatalities) and 3% external load (no deaths).
This goes back to my previous assertion of Robinson ops and Bell's being used in higher risk environments.
While there is no specific data to back it up, I'm willing to bet a cold one that like for like Bell's are clocking more hours and given the relative numbers is a far safer platform than the Robbie.
But then most of us knew that already.
EDIT: There are definitely accidents missing from the foreign reports.
For the fatal Robbie foreign accidents quoted above Russia is the main culprit with 28%, Australia + NZ combined with 24% and Brazil with 16%.
Last edited by Bell_ringer; 14th Oct 2017 at 10:24.
Reason: Because I can