Originally Posted by
rcoight
Ah, so this is one of those newfangled style debates where facts don’t matter, only emotions and feelings do.
You feel safer in the twin, so therefore you are (even though the fact is you’re not).
Got it, thanks!
Of course...I get it now. The more engines you have bolted on to the airframe, the greater the odds that one will fail. Four engines less safe than two, and two less safe than one. Tell it to the certifying authorities.
It's not those odds that we should worry about. It's whether or not the airframe will still maintain a safe flight path with one of those engines failed, (or two in the case of the quad), and just as important, whether the driver-airframe can make the thing maintain a safe flight path.
Comparing a clapped-out 50 year old light twin powered by early iron-age engines with a relatively new turbine powered single, of course one would expect the reliability of the turbine to win. Especially when we factor in the pilot of the beat-up old twin could well be inexperienced, whereas someone trusted with a multi-million dollar turbine probably has a bit more time at the controls.
But comparing the turbine single with an equally modern turbine twin, and assuming that the pilots of both are competent, the twin wins on every count.
Applying statistics to compare, say the PC12 with the King Air, or ATR 42 with Dash 8, does not (and how could it?) consider factors on an equal basis - e.g. operating environment, the maturity of the operators, maintenance, pilot training, pilot experience on type and within that environment, regulatory over-sight etc. Stats are useful for setting insurance premiums and filling glossy sales brochures with nice pie charts, but little else.