A very interesting summary, blakmax.
The FAA notice on the blade AD in 2008 quoted on about page 8 of this thread notes:
This amendment is prompted by 11 reports of blade debond, some occurring in flight causing the pilot to feel excessive vibrations and land, and some found during routine maintenance.
I didn't see anything in it stating that there was any evidence of it being a factor in any fatal (or non-fatal) accidents. The Israeli report stated
There is real probability that some of the similar accidents in recent years that involved that type of helicopter were caused by a similar failure process.
(I note also that it mentions erosion as evident on the disbonded blade). I find it hard to reconcile these two: I have no doubt the Israeli investigators have done a thorough job, as have the US investigators on all the Robinson accidents in the US.
However if there really were a 'real probability' that similar disbonding had caused fatal accidents, why has it not been recorded as a possible factor far more frequently than we have been hearing about? A 'real possibility' maybe, but one missed by all other accident investigators.
For me, this is very pertinent to Blakmax's last sentence:
Then it comes down to a balance of probability that bond failure was the cause and not the result
Can any significant number of other accident investigators all have been mistaken in not even quoting this as a possible factor, and if we assume thay all did the highly professional job we know they all do, I find it hard to accept the 'real probability' the Israeli report suggests.
Lafite