Geez, I know the guy some of these comments are being made about and I reckon they are pretty unfair. I've flown with this operator, as I have flown with many around Australia, and I reckon it's a pretty straight outfit.
Anyway, the pilot lost power on the engine and he got it back to shore - looks like a valve problem - anyway, where's the praise for the young pilot who did a good job in decision making and flying to get the machine to shore in one piece and stopped his pax from getting wet? Not too sure on the other power loss comment though.
As for the other incidents/accidents. Hitting wires? Hmmm...I've done that and so have a lot of helicopter pilots. We operate low level and it's always a hazard that we have to be aware of. No excuses, but we are human and we do make mistakes. This was reported to the appropriate authority. Blade delamination...nothing to do with the way the helicopter was being operated. This was reported. Stick into the blades...helo was shutdown and blade replacement done onsite and that was around ten years ago!
I can understand if the R44 operation is getting some B206 people a little jumpy because, as much as I hate to admit it, it is a good capable helicopter that is quite economical to run. Why else is it making inroads into ENG and Law Enforcement the way it is? Now, it takes a lot for me to admit that especially being a piston lover but hey, sometimes I have to admit that I can be wrong.
In my time in the Bureau, there were quite a few B206 engine problems that resulted in incidents and accidents that everyone seems to 'accept' those (and admittedly, the 'rate' is not high but the 'rate' is probably higher than the R44's - I can't back that up but just a gut feel).
I was also aware that some of the more reputable and larger operators weren't reporting all their incidents or even accidents so no-one is perfect.
It's kinda disappointing to see the fairly personal attacks without any reall facts to back them up.