I tend to agree with Joepilot, some of he arguments are spurious i believe. For instance, the sideslip issue. Just because the a/c has demonstrated a certain flight conditions, does not mean that that it should be approved for normal operations. If that were the case why would we have sideways flight limits?.
Reference is made to the combination of teetering head and flapping hinges; that's not new, the 214ST has them too.
Te report asks why the tail rotor pre-coning; surely for the same reason that the Bell use it on their main rotors? to reduce hub stress under load. It might help avoid boom strikes at extreme flapping limits too. Maybe the 407 could have done with it!
What evidence is there to suggest fatigue failures are a problem? The 212 recently had an a/d which grounded several of our fleet because the masts needed inspecting for wear from a split ring used in the damper assembly. Several 212s have lost masts recently. I don't hear any protests about that, yet you'd think after 40 years that would be impossible.
I may be cynical, but I believe this is a biased argument, albeit well stated. It is a fact that Robinsons crash when mishandled, but so do most types. Colleagues who were there tell me that more than a few 205s were lost in Vietnam due to mast bumping in extreme manouvres.
The R22 is highly 'chuckable' and great fun. It also instills great respect for it's low inertia head, which can only be of help on larger types. If it is as bad as is claimed the accident rate would be a lot higher.
------------------
Another day in paradise