Twin debate, taken personal?
I am not sure why Anfi's posts attract so much ad hominem attacks? It must be abundantly clear that twins - all things being equal - are only marginally safer than singles.
Firstly because apart from engine failure, there are many other ways to crash, which are unrelated to number of engines you have (e.g., LOC, CFIT, wires, midair with bird, drone or other a/c, fuel starvation, other mechanical failure, all of which we have seen in NYC and elsewhere).
Secondly, because of the second engine twins are considerably more complex, heavier, less powerful and have less endurance. Added complexity ironically includes the handling of an OEI situation, which with logic certainly will happen in a twin twice as often as an engine-out in a single. As a consequence, pilot error, mechanical failures and fuel starvation (both due to fuel starvation, and fuel mismanagement) will occur more frequently in twins than in singles.
Given the high incidence of pilot error leading to accidents, and the (at least theoretically) improved capability of a multi-crew to make sound decisions as well as to deal with the increased workload in an emergency, adding a second pilot in front in my view is more beneficial than adding a second engine in the back.
I know for example about a large multi-national listed company whose board members (for insurance reasons) may fly whatever they want as long as there are two pilots. I have seen them charter a R44 Astro for airport transfers, the exec was reading his newspaper in the back, but yes, two comm pilots in front.
The mishap flight here is a case in point. From 2,000 feet AGL, a multi-crew should have been better able to decide where to auto-rotate to. More importantly, one pilot could have focussed on keeping the RRPM in the green, while the other could have dealt with pax management or deploying the floats (which in itself I read is a two-hand operation), etc.