You guys are certainly correct about lack of context in the data, however at least it can't be said that Robinsons are dropping out of the sky for any reason at a significantly higher rate than Bells.
And there's no question that lower cost of entry = lower time pilots = higher risk. Which again, speaks to the truism that it is the pilot, not the machine. Blame Robinson pilots if you wish, but don't blame the intrinsic nature of the design.
Just out of curiosity, I took another pass through the data for 2017. It would seem the Bells are indeed hard working, so to speak, while the Robinsons are much more of mixed bag, half working, half "personal/business" type stuff. Obviously there's no data as to the causes yet.
