Apart from the unimpeachable facts that no other form of transport yet devised by mankind has saved more lives than it has taken, or that for many years the B206 Jetranger was the safest flying machine on the FAA register there is no case to ask, nor answer.
Despite helos being dependant on several dynamic systems essential to maintain controlled flight and planks are not there ought to be corresponding failure stats. The B206 safety case suggests that if it is present at all it isn't very significant.
There are some helos with a shocking safety (ie accident) record - like Gazelles, despite when in Military hands were one of the safest aircraft ever so the crash stats aren't a useful guide to safety of the aircraft itself, and believe me we used to do things in those old Gaz pieces that few civvies would have thought of. Its the people the aircraft attract that cause the stats, not the airframes.
The Mitsubishi MU2 is apparently a perfectly safe aircraft - if you treat it right. But then a Piper Cub is a brutal killer if you don't...(not quite sure how you'd achieve that but it must be possible). The Starfighter only got called the widowmaker in some countries, not others. Why do you suppose that was?
How can anyone make a scientific statement on such an open question?
Any aircraft is as safe as YOU make it.
And n response to the "safety aids" alluded to below. What the f*** are they? Things that prevent accidents - Oh yes? how? In confined site? Give over!
Fire extinguishers and fearnought suits are for after the accident, they have no bearing on safety as understood by prevention of the accident in the first place. In my book that stuff is response equipment, not safety related.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 1st Jul 2012 at 20:04.