I didn't do your homework assignment exactly as requested SAS because I simply don't have the time. I do understand, I think, that you are trying to make a point that the work the Bell fleet is doing is far more dangerous, complex and risky than the Robinson fleet. I don't agree with that assessment. Carrying low-time/part-time pilots is a risky business all by itself, as is instruction. Nevertheless, thanks to the highly organized NTSB database I was willing to peel the onion a little bit. As you can see from the table, many of the NTSB categories are comparable. The ones that are not I highlighted. Draw whatever conclusions you like. I've drawn mine, as noted above, and have not had my mind changed yet.
And, to touch on your other post, the capital cost of the helicopter is NOT the issue. It is the OPERATING cost that drives the business, or personal business, model. Hell, I thought about going in with one or two others on a used 206 or R66. But it just doesn't make economic sense. I put my own 44 to work about 150 hours last year (lease to a local school) and that paid for my insurance which substantially reduced the cost of my personal flying. There is NO way I could do that with a 206 or R66. Nobody would rent it or lease it for enough hours to matter. That market is flooded with way too many machines already and being worked by larger concerns who would have no interest in adding my machine to the stable. And since I can't afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot" but still want to fly, I MUST accept the Robinson as a solution or simply not fly at all. As for the lot of you who CAN afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot", or are full-time turbine helicopter pilots, I don't begrudge you your success. But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.
