SAS - Yes both 92 and 225 have had "handbrake" incidents, and I would be the first to say that it was only luck that the 225 came out of it completely unscathed, whereas the 92 was moderately trashed. I was talking about "foolproof design" if that is a technical term? With anything as complex as a helicopter, it is very difficult to design it so that an incorrect action by the pilot is not catastrophic. However it is somewhat easier to design so that in some cases an inaction by the pilot is not catestrophic. Put it another way, a heli designed so that something MUST be done by the pilots at a critical time, when other similar helis don't require this, is the poorer design from a safety point of view. There are a number of examples of this in the 92 vs 225 debate.
It stems from the belief by EC that pilots only recently evolved from chimpanzees, they design accordingly. Our American cousins of course don't even believe in evolution, but assume that all heli pilots are descended from Chuck Yeager or his relatives. Any that are not steely superheroes have no business flying their products. Personally, being closer to a chimp than a Yeager, I prefer EC's philosophy.
John - the point of my "waffle" comment was that an argument that having such a limitation built into the design of a commercial heli is a "good thing", is a poor argument in my view.
I agree that both manufacturers have good and bad points, stemming to some extent from where they are starting from (viz my second para)
HC