I've done a good bit of time on both the PC12 and the Caravan. I myself have yet to hear of a case where a simple engine failure ended in fatality. As of the time that I last flew the Van (in 2000) there had never been an engine failure that wasn't caused by the pilot either failing to gas up or failing to ensure the oil was up and the dipstick secure. The PC12 has had a few engine failures, but the fatalities have not been related to those (please correct me if I'm wrong).
The reason nobody is dying due to the engine failures is that both of those aircraft are built like tanks. The crash in Newfoundland had an impact 40-50kts faster than it needed to be and there were still no fatalities. Of course the pilot should have never left home with the oil problem, and then maintained glide speed (and altitude) and a few other things, but that's another story. The only way to end up dead in one of those singles after a simple engine failure is if you break out of the clouds at 50' straight into a rock, or right into a lake. I suppose there is always bad luck though.....
No, the problem with the big singles is not generally the single engine factor, but the single pilot. A huge proportion of the fatal crashes of these aircraft are CFIT or pilot decision problems, and almost always single pilot. I for one will gladly take a trained kid with 200hrs over the second engine. Given a proper S.O.P and a corporate attitude that fosters a good crew, the majority of these crashes wouldn't happen.
I won't surmise what actually caused this recent crash, but regardless of the actual cause, I think some serious questions must be asked about this accident flight
1) Why was there only one pilot with a full load of paying passengers in IFR weather?
2)Why didn't this company ground the flight in light of what was clearly some serious icing in the area? Several other pilots in the area had parked themselves already that day. I've taken Caravans off-strip and done a whole lot of things that readers of this forum might think a bit nuts with one, but tangling with ice is not something I would purposely do in a caravan. I would never knowingly accept freezing drizzle of any intensityas suitable for a caravan. The carrier in question has lost two other caravans to icing. One of them was flown by a good friend, who luckily survived with three crushed Vertebrae and a bunch of stitches. Even at the time of his crash, he stated that the company would never question a pilot's decision not to go, but they would basically never stop the flight themselves. He went-- and got caught. They of course pushed him out the door afterwards to the unemployment line.
3)Was the accident flight operating over water (or in this case thin ice) at an altitude that would allow a safe glide to shore? Were there life vests, etc. aboard? The pictures show a search happening a looonnnng ways from shore. In flight breakup/mechanical failure is certainly a good possibility at this time, which might explain why the aircraft ended up where it did, but I would seriously question how it got so far from shore unless he was at a considerable altitude.
Truly another sad day in aviation. Having been caught twice in unforecast icing in a Caravan, and having been lucky (luck and nothing else) enough to escape a few other situations whilst flying single pilot IFR, I know that there is nothing more lonely than sitting there by yourself waiting for fate to take its course. That feeling comes right back to the pit of my stomach when I read of these types of accidents. I know the sadness that the families and loved ones are feeling, but I also can't help being angered at the fact that the pilot ended up in the above circumstances (even if they turn out to be irrelavent to the crash) when there was no need. He should have never been where he was, when he was there, and by himself. The system is to blame for that.