Tyne,
Now look at the position you have taken:
"I know it, there are lots that I recall, and so I am right!" Do you expect me to publically debate the realtive number of people hurt in helicopters as some kind of proof?
I have investigated military crashes (same fuselage as S-61) that proove you (unfortunately) incorrect.
Some of my observations on the S-76 toughness:
1) I recall one S-76 that slid off a deck an a wet day, and nestled in the railing below, clipped off all 4 main blades near the root while pulling 100% torque. The aircraft was huled home, and the transmission removed with common tools. Most helos would have had the whole transmission mount and cabin structure disintegrate from that massive torque.
2) I landed at 13.5 ft/second in one hard landing (a horrendous impact, do not try this at home!) and the aircraft suffered one bent stringer in the tail cone. It flew thousands of hours after that landing (which would have bent the skids of a Huey up to the belly and crushed the lower tub).
3) In a training accident where the instructor shut down the good engine during an OE practice, the aircraft landed very hard and peeled itself apart, tail cone, landing gear, then roll over and all blades snapped off. I was the investigator, and opened the two doors that were still unopened with one hand, using the normal door handle. All four doors ft properly in their jambs because there was so little cabin distortion.
None of this is attempting to disprove that the latest helicopters that meet the newest regulations are better, but the S-76 is no slouch, and it is actually better than the older, less strong S-61. This debate can't go on, I simply can't start to denegrate one helo to prove another, as you have. You are technically and factually wrong, however. Like most opinions, yours seems right to you, based on the facts that you have, but not when all the facts available are layed out.
Have a Merry Christmas!