More good points daysleeper..I think the 40 year comment is perhaps a bit wide of the mark, given that there are piston twins flying around that are nearly 30 yrs old..and we are talking about their replacement or at least an option for replacement. Also I think age/cycle related issues come back to airworthiness requirements that are type specific and based on the best knowledge at the time that the regulators stipulate.
I must say I agree with your ETOPS comments...but I think ETOPS rather than justify single engine Ops, highlights the process of development and culture change, Im sure if you asked aircrew hopping the pond 20 or so years ago if operating with just 2 engines was safe, you would get laughed out of the room..and yet today its the norm.
In my limited aviation experience, I see this issue as one of those devisive..us and them..issues that come along now and then. However if we use a statistical rather than emotive or traditional basis for the arguement..the case is abundantly clear that given the correct amount of regulation, single turbine Ops represent the next logical step for GA Ops in this country. (still no comfort to any injured or killed if that single engine fails...but thats the point isnt it.....in a comparible light twin...one engine is by a factor of 5 more likely to fail..and if that happens....you are by a factor of 10 more likely to be injured or killed). Stats thanks to the FAA..and CASA (Oz FAA)
If nothing else the statistics are food for thought.
Thanks once again for your views....I think im starting to sound preachy
cheers
H