Riff Raff,
I understand frustration at the process.
It's not uncommon that, upon review of the application, office action, and cited references, that an inventor/attorney gets frustrated with the examiner. In fairness however, when one considers the amount of time allocated by the PTO to the examiner to review the application, search the art, review the relevant art, and disposition the application, it at times precludes an examiner from generating a rejection that an engineer would describe as thorough. Right, wrong, or indifferent it's the nature of the beast.
And it's one reason why it is in the applicant's best interest to pursue similar claims in other countries. If only because a second set of eyes is a good thing, it makes sense. It also has the potential benefits of the search looking more closely at other art databases, testing the claims against different legal standards, and greater geographic coverage.
That said, prosecution is like a calibration. The applicant should present a continuum of rights, extending from a relatively broad, independent claim to comparatively narrow, set of dependent claims. The Examiner then surveys the art, and picks the place on the continuum where inventive activity begins and where rights therefor start. In Sikorsky's application the Examiner finds no such point on the presented continuum, either in the original set of claims, or withinthe narrower, amended set of claims.
In the example to which you make reference, such negotiation may explain difference between the claims ultimately issued in comparison to those orginally filed. It may take some time to review the application image file wrapper, but it should be discernable.
Regardless, I do agree that the process can be frustrating to an inventor. Particularly if the attorney fails to explain the process to the inventor when corresponding with an inventor to request assistance in reviewing cited art.
Cheers!