I guess if you never designed a car, you have no basis to conclude that running into a concrete wall at 100 mph is dangerous.
That is an utterly false equivalence, and you know it.
Nobody is discussing whether or not hitting a wall at 100 miles an hour is dangerous. We all know that.
You are judging the likelihood of hitting the wall without understanding how a car is built, or how it is driven, since you’ve neither built, nor driven the car.
You’re not in a position to judge the likelihood of the “wall hitting” as a result.
You were trying to tell us that this is a bad airplane, but you don’t know how the airplane is designed, how it is operated, and you haven’t examined the crash rate, or the likelihood of mishap.
So your critique is nothing more than giving in to sensationalism.
When you can explain a vortex ring state, and under which conditions that becomes dangerous, then, perhaps, I’ll listen to your opinion. We lost a lot of osprey early on because they encountered a vortex ring state.
That’s something Osprey (and helicopter) pilots avoid, but before they knew how to avoid it, it was a risk.
The risk has been mitigated through pilot training and on board warning systems. The airplane has gotten a lot safer since its introduction.
We have also stopped buying the C-17, one of the most successful, and safest, air lifters ever built, so the end of a procurement cycle doesn’t mean that the airplane was bad, it simply means that the requirement was fulfilled.