Originally Posted by
Twist & Shout
Given an option, I'd personally prefer to fly a machine type, that didn't have a proven history of unexplained catastrophic failures.
So would I. But since the EC225 doesn't have a proven history of unexplained catastrophic failures I'd be happy to fly that type. There is one currently unexplained catastrophic failure - it is in the early stages of investigation so can it be surprising that it is "officially" currently unexplained?
As to whether AH is currently deliberately misleading customers as part of some defensive death-throe, this seems unlikely but what is more certain is that EASA wouldn't be complicit in that. If there was evidence of a serious design fault that could lead to a probability of a repeat of the accident, EASA would surely have grounded the fleet as part of their AD, rather than merely requiring some fairly superficial checks to be carried out.