Twins are no safer than singles.
I know your a guy who is all about statistics, but the whole "twins are no safer statistically" argument is crap. The last lol at the trends was years ago to my knowledge and there certainly hasn't been anything recently that I know of, since the major spike in single engine airframes. I would bet if you ran a study tomorrow and looked back over the past 5 years you would see that statistically twins are much safer. Spend 10 minutes looking at the NTSB crash records for that timeframe and tell me what the major of the crashes have been, you guessed it, single engine airframes, mostly A-Stars... Granted there is more of them out flying now, but I think the numbers are off and haven't been updated in a while...
Years ago our program had an incident while landing at their base, that had they not been in a twin it would have been 3 fatalities. While on final to their base, which was located on a pier extending into the inner harbor, they lost an engine. They were able to wave off the landing, take the second to max power, and safely perform a run on landing. Had it had been a single they would have plunged into the drink in the month of Feb and been gone before help ever showed up.
So if said scenario saved three lives of friends/co workers over the course of 5 years you can take the statistics and toss them.
End of the day there are people on each side of the argument, and they are entitled to their opinion, however most of those people work for single engine programs and that's what they tell themselves so they can sleep at night and feel safe.
If performed is a factor and superior in a single then why isn't the military or almost every single program who does SAR in singles...? All lip service. Cost is the factor, and like I said until programs continue to put a price on lives, more will die.
Tigger you said it in your post, "deemed it too large and TOO EXPENSIVE". The foot print of an EC135 and say a 130 are almost identical so size is a non issue... If performed is a factor and superior in a single then why isn't the military or almost every single program who does SAR in singles...? All lip service. Cost is the factor, and like I said until programs continue to put a price on lives, more will die.
I acknowledge in my first post there are more singles flying in the industry. I also have been doing this long enough to form my own opinions and my employer doesn't use facts to reassure me anything. I researched and picked where I wanted to work based off many factors. I already said I feel like the statistics haven't been updated or looked at in sometime and this is my opinion, so I am not going to substantiate anything, you have your opinion and again I have mine. If you want to go off statistics, and disregard the issue that single engine crashes by far are the majority in the last few years, regardless of how many are out there flying then go ahead. Your entitled to that. I see that as troubling. Toyota sells a lot of cars, doesn't mean when their gas pedals were sticking and killing people I was eager to go buy one. That's the cool thing about being individuals, we all are able to make our own decisions, and how we go about that may differ.
Well, my opinion (to keep Remi happy, apparently) is that a twin-engine machine is safer. Granted I can't quote great stats and that's for a couple of reasons. The first is that I don't care enough to look - I'm happy to rely on the opinions of people I trust and know are more well-versed in the subject than I. The second reason is that I'm happy to go with my gut on this. We fly FW and RW and while I haven't had an engine failure in the RW, I have in the FW and I was pretty please at that point that I was in a KingAir 350 instead of a Pilatus. The same would hold true for the helicopter, I suppose (S76 C+, if anyone cares).
Not trying to be an ***, but just wondering, do you change the font size of your replies on purpose to emphasize certain things?I'm sorry if you guys can't see the importance of clearly delineating the difference between fact & opinion when your audience is primarily those who don't know enough about the issue at hand to be able to differentiate the two, yet potentially are in a position to use that information in their decision making.
Not trying to be an ***, but just wondering, do you change the font size of your replies on purpose to emphasize certain things?
I'm sorry if you guys can't see the importance of clearly delineating the difference between fact & opinion when your audience is primarily those who don't know enough about the issue at hand to be able to differentiate the two, yet potentially are in a position to use that information in their decision making.
Dude try as I may I can't understand you sometimes. Merck started his posted off with his statement is merely his opinion. What more do you want? In previous posts you have acknowledge that people are entitled to such. So if thats the case let people do just that and have their opinion. Believe it or not everything in life doesn't have to be backed up with statistics and I don't care what the old study/percentages you are referencing shows when there are some common sense items that I take into account to form MY OPINION..... I don't need a percentage, which is years old, and doesn't take into account the recent, and huge spike in mom and pop air medical vendors plopping down single engine A-star bases all over town to tell me that a lot of the crashes that have recently occurred have been due to single engine NON-IFR aircraft flying into IFR weather and crashing, to justify that a twin engine IFR capable aircraft is better. It's common sense, and a FACT that given the same scenario, in my dual engine IFR capable aircraft, we would file a flight plan, go IFR as usual, and likely have a different outcome. IFR is "Instrument flight rules" or margin weather/ceilings for "those who don't know enough about the issue at hand yet are in a position to use my information to make their decision".
I have acknowledge countless times, on countless threads, your training, knowledge, and intelligence, and can't help but feel like your extremely pompous in some of your replies. Not everyone bases every decision or opinion they may form based off research and statistics all the time, and thats ok. Sometimes common sense prevails and I am done wasting my time trying to have you understand that.