ZH844 ,
It would be good if you had some facts and not rose colored glasses for your favorite helicopter. Lu is right, and he has facts.
The EH-101 has compromised crashworthiness, falling quite short of US military crashworthiness. In a paper written by its designers and in its brochures, it is stated that the EH-101 has 15 G's of crashworthiness. This is remarkably better than a Huey, but far short of the 20 G's required by the US military.
The S-92 meets US Ml spec, at 20 G's.
I can provide the documentation for this to anyone who requests it in a PM to me. I can post it if enough interest is shown. I also understand that the "US-101" will not meet the US military crashworthiness standard until the second increment, thus assuring that a private in the US Army has better crashworthness than the president, should the EH-101 be chosen.
Also, ZH844, since you hold others to facts, you might try to tell the truth in your posts, otherwise we might learn to simply tune you out. The "running landing" at Malpensa that you say "wasn't really an accident" was a tail rotor drive shaft failure, followed by a roll over that had the entire rotor system destroyed, wasn't it? And yes it did re-fly, after 25 months of hard work at the factory, where only the lord knows how much was spent on it.
US military procedure calls for a Class A accident to be declared if the damage is over $1M. That was a Class A accident due to failure of a critical component.
What else have you posted that takes similar liberties?