Funny video. But there is a point in there not often made in the MEP v SEP debate. The second engine was not originally added to provide safety in system and power redundancy, it was there because it was the cheapest way of getting the power needed to get an airframe that size and weight off the ground. The safety argument could be a case of making a virtue out of necessity. Light GA twins that could manage without the second engine were usually intended as trainers.
The safety argument may be flawed but I would still feel a lot safer with two engines than with one. Because my usage does not justify the higher operating costs I fly an SEP and accept the loss of utility that involves.
Ted,
Though that is historically true of the earliest examples – Stinsons, Apaches, and arguably Twin Comms and Seneca 1s – most of the aircraft in real use, such as later Senecas, Barons, Aztecs, PA31s, C310s, C304s, C340s, C421s, DA42s and so on, are well capable of recovering even from an EFATO and climbing away.
Funnily enough it’s the very light trainers – Seminole, Cougar, Duchess – which are a bit of a handful, and need to be treated just right to get them to perform, even with just student and instructor on board. But, so long as they are used only as trainers that is probably quite a good thing, as it hones skills that can be fudged on the more capable aircraft. My “local” school uses a Seneca 1 and it definitely needs the full Monty, including the small bank angle.
But yet again and again, let us remember that these limitations only apply to about 15-25 seconds of the whole flight.
I do agree with Dave that all these comments only refer to operations at reasonably low elevations at reasonable temperatures. It is unsurprising that he had the issues he did at temperatures and altitudes way above the normal range.
Reading through, there seems to be very little statistical analysis and a lot of anecdotal evidence.
So, turning to some actual stats., in one analysis the Cessna 340 had a fatal accident rate of .99 compared with the equivalent pressurised single of 2.33. The PA34 against the Saratoga is .85 and 1.19. The gap only favours singles when comparing twins with much simpler single engined types. For example the 182 has a fatal accident rate of only .74.
Seems to me the question becomes more complex when we consider the elements driving the statistics. For example, if you score pilots out of 10 on their ability to pilot a particular aircraft, would the pilot population of 340 pilots score more highly than 182 pilots. I cant prove it, but my suspicion is that in general twin pilots would score less well, because the skills required to handle a 182 in a critical situation and survive are far less challenging than a 340, which means a 340 pilot relatively needs a lot more hours, greater currency, and greater training none of which I suspect many have to the required degree.
I think we also intuitively know that the typical 182 pilot will fly very different missions from the typical 340 pilot.
So when we profile the pilot population and add this to the mix, it seems to me it would be very difficult to persuade yourself that in general twins arent safer than equivalent singles, and perhaps a great deal safer in the hands of a pilot with currency and experience.
If the statistics and your intuition are not enough to persuade any single pilot, doubts remain and you are sincerely interested you should fly in a twin. If you watch a simulated engine failure after departure (and there are plenty of You Tube videos which do the job just as well) you will appreciate that handled correctly it is a non event, and even handled poorly it isnt disasterous. Only when it is handled very porrly will it kill you. Inevitably there are exceptions, but perhaps no more or less than there are exceptions in the single fleet. We all know of twins lacking sufficient power to climb away as much as we know singles that will drop a wing and play up in what should be a benign stall.
I dont think the stats. support the opening contention and I dont think anyone had presented a convincing argument based on anything else, but it should remain a well kept secret because I suspect it has helped to persuade fewer people to pilot twins with the consequence suppresion of twin prices to the benefit of those that do 
So can we archive this thread and keep it to ourselves please.
The gap only favours singles when comparing twins with much simpler single engined types
Accident statistics for GA have been improving and oscillate between 1.5 and 2.5 fatals per 100,000 hours. The CE – 172/182 and PA28 Warrior/Archer, and DA40 are consistently around/below 1.0. Richard Collins cited 0.56 for the CE-172 in an article recently. This is not far off Part 135. Part 121 aims for less than 1 in a million, and the US carriers have not had a fatal in nearly 10 years.
The curve for these events tends to be quite fat tailed so a statistician would suggest that future rates might vary quite widely. An aircraft with 1.5 vs an aircraft with 2.0 may not be that significant. The large active CE-172 fleet however is probably quite a robust data point.
Your 340 statistic is impressive, and am guessing the single you compared it to was the P210 which for various reasons had a relatively poor record. Complex turbocharged singles are likely to have similar rates to an MEP, although the Cirrus is now in CE-182 territory.
Why dont you all just admit it …. its all down to the ability of the pilot.
NIL in this Very Hot debate :
One of the “issues” with pistons twins is EXPOSURE. The very fact that Owners/Operators/Pilots choose them over SEP is BECAUSE they are likely to fly in more demanding conditions, ie. night, IMC, icing, mountains, water, etc. etc.
Consequently, they are typically EXPOSED to far more demanding flying conditions, where one small mistake can be fatal.
I have one such real-life, first-hand experience with such an example:
A light twin that I maintain came very very close to ending in a smoking hole. The owner is a low time VFR only pilot, so when he needs to fly for business, he hires a safety pilot. A few weeks ago, he launched into low IFR, at night with icing under 5000’ . The safety pilot had only flown once previously in the plane over a year past.
Shortly after take-off, in IMC @ 4000’ MSL (3500’ AGL) whilst rapidly picking up ice, they experienced a full electrical failure, despite the fact that the acft has a fully redundant, dual alternators and back-up bus..
They declared an emergency and had just barely enough electrical power left to communicate with ATC. In total darkness with a failed co-pilots electrical AI they were very lucky to have descended to VFR conditions @ 500’ AGL and receive vectors to return to their departure airport.
After getting the call from a very shaken owner, I looked the plane over.
The “problem” was very obvious: both alternator breakers had been pulled.
The owner was flying left seat and had not checked them.
The safety pilot said afterwards that he had called it out in the pre-take-off check-list but did not check it himself.
The point is that twins see much more demanding conditions – read stupid-pilot-tricks tend to have very dire consequences.
I suspect the driver behind the relatively poor P210 numbers, just like the PA46 and (at the beginning) Cirrus, is pilot training not in adequation with the type’s capability. Even if the plane can, doesn’t mean the pilot is up to the task.
COPA and Cirrus have done an amazing job in that respect. MMOPA tries and has some great ressources, but a combination of lack of critical mass and less than 100% commitment from Piper has limited the positive impact on the Malibu fleet. When the type was grounded for FAA review, the plane passed with flying colours, but the importance of pilot training (notably in autopilot use and correct icing procedures) was the main finding.
Wow!!! That is the craziest thing I’ve seen in a long time! Haha! Fantastic idea! Fantastic execution and a fabulous twin engine acrobatics plane! Love it! Well done guys!
Of course done in FAA and not EASA land…
