A table is a table and I am surprised that anyone would consider it a substitute for a report or rational debate in which hopefully fact-based details are espoused.
Perhaps for those frequently engaged in 139 operations or who have followed the fleet's operational history over some time, including accidents, this is old hat and woefully inadequate but .. the table is for those readers who, like myself, are not involved with 139 operations, know little or nothing of the type's operational history but are keen to get a grasp on what has happened in recent years.
As I say, those who have been following the 139's history from the outset may yawn but newcomers, unfamiliar with even the basic details surrounding 139 incidents, will doubtless appreciate the tabled summary. When someone writes about a specific accident newbies (and perhaps even some infrequent readers) may not readily recall the basic details of the event. Now that there have been several more 139 accidents a 'quick reference' should come in handy for those wishing to locate 139-related incidents within the context of the type's accident history.
Moving on, if these discussions should be fruitful, then might I pose a question regarding the extent of the 139's 10 day factory course given that one Rotorhead has communicated his conviction that the existing course is inadequate. For those environments/cultures (corporate that is) where training is perhaps in question wouldn't this be a starting point in reinforcing 139 operational efficiency. I mention 'starting point' as there are clearly numerous measures required in establishing and sustaining safe and professional operations but, strengthening initial proficiency might be a place to begin. Is the 10 day course sufficient and how effective are the methods used to measure this sufficiency on a person by person basis?