Originally Posted by
gulliBell
When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.
I bet you think if you flip a coin 5 times in a row and get tails each time, then chances are increasing that the next flip will be heads.
My mother had a serious accident last year. She'd been driving older technology cars for over fifty years, never had an accident. Then she bought a brand new Japanese car, full of airbag technology, ABS, stability control, traction control, auto braking, lane departure assistance, blindspot warnings. It was a really flash car. One day she was driving along, got distracted by something and was belted by a large van travelling through an intersection.
Using your logic, the introduction of that new type of car into the role is likely to have been behind her crash. She'd have avoided the accident had she been driving the clapped out old Toyota she'd had for years without incident.
Two engine helicopters are still flown using collective, cyclic and pedals - the number of engines has bugger all to do with most things until one fails. What is far more likely to be behind accidents such as this one are human errors like spatial disorientation, visual illusions, task fixation, fatigue, distraction etc.