In the U.S., helicopters operating under FAR part-135 do not have to actually calculate the gross weight and c.g. for every takeoff *IF* an approved loading schedule is available, adhered to and the numbers are "checked" prior to departure. Load 'em up, initial the little box that says the c.g. and gross weight have been checked, and off you go. "With 200 pounds of fuel I can take 1050 in payload. Four 250 pounders is 1,000 and they got about, err...let's call it 50 in the boot. (Maybe they're not all really 250.) They're loaded in the proper seats...good to go!"
For twin-engine aircraft operating under part-135, the pilot must calculate his *actual* gross weight and center of gravity for EVERY takeoff. Which means that the single-pilot will do a LOT of button-pushing on the computer/calculator and writing on the manifest when he's doing forty takeoffs per day and doesn't have the luxury of doing it on his own personal schedule. (Some operators had slightly different procedures for this. At mine, we had to calculate the actual numbers.)
Downtime is coming and you have to "clean up the field" (i.e. bring all the guys from the outlying platforms back to the main quarters). They've waited until the VERY LAST MINUTE before launching you, to let the guys get as much time working as possible. You've told the foreman what time you need to start the cleanup to get done by downtime, but there are ALWAYS changes in the plan...guys running late, the infamous "swing-by's" ("Oh, we need to swing by Delta on our way back to Fox") which you didn't plan for and cannot really refuse...
You just cannot do anything expeditiously in a twin. Even fueling requires more time, because instead of taking on a quick 25 gallons I have to wait for 50 to get uploaded by that slow-ass pump.
Even without rushing (which none of us ever do), operating a twin as a "field ship" in the GOM is a lot more work than a single. It's not a matter of, as one guy who's obviously never flown a twin stated, simply a matter of pushing two throttles up instead of one (how naive is that?). I for one am not convinced that a BO105 is *that* much safer than a 206. At least, I never felt so. In fact, I'm with Devil49, it is a hallucination to say that twins are always "safer" than singles.
But pilots will convince themselves of anything. Two of anything are better than one, so twins *must* be "safer" than singles! That just stands to reason, Rotordog! An engine-failure is the ONLY thing that matters...the ONLY criteria we look at. Why can't you see that? Are ye daft, laddie? Well, are ye?
Okay, okay...BO105...bad example. No power. No Cat-A capability most of the time (especially with that dad-blamed rear-facing seat option). So sh*tcan the Bolkow! Get a brandy-new EC-135 or -145. Oops! Now we're too heavy to land on some of the smaller platforms out in the GOM. So we have a choice: either beef up the platform (yeah, riiiiight) or only go there by boat - which exposes the oilfield worker to a whole 'nother level of risk when he swings on and off the field boat via the rope or must get lifted onto the platform via the crane/basket.
Or...let's just tell that oil company to abandon that platform...shut it in! and not use it because the "safe" helicopter we need to use is now too heavy to land on it. Maybe some of you guys aren't aware of it, but there are a bunch of platforms in the GOM that have heliports rated for only 4,000 pounds. Did I land on some in my BO105 at 5,000 pounds? You betcha! Shhh, don't tell the boss. He'll tell me I was being unsafe.
Get real, people.
The point of this drivel is that "safety" is a nebulous term, the meaning of which varies depending on just who you're talking to and what numbers you're examining. Does a twin always prevent a ditching? Well, no, obviously. Is a ditching always a catastrophe? Well, no, obviously. "Risk" is another one of those relative terms. Is the mere possibility of a ditching so horrifically objectionable that it must be avoided at all cost? Umm, your mileage may vary there, pardner.
As I pointed out, if we stopped all helicopter flying in the GOM, then the rig/platform hands would have to do all of their business by boat. We've most certainly eliminated the aviation risk, but have we made their lives safer? All we've done is substitute one risk for another. And since it's simply not possible to do all GOM flying in twins, maybe...just maybe flying them around in a 206 or EC120 is "safer" and "less risky" than not flying them at all.
I'd like to live in a perfect world, but I don't. I'm for reducing risk as much as the next guy, but those who criticize GOM ops (and the FAA that allows them) should come over and take a look at what we really do before spouting off about this or that. It's easy to make indignant, breathless claims that all GOM pilots simply deserve the increased safety of twin-engine aircraft, but it's really not practical. Or logical. Or correct, for that matter.