Helmet Fire- I aplologise if I gave the impression that the OGP stats were proof of my contention. My intent is to provide evidence that what appears to be logical isn't always indicative of reality.
I will respectfully disagree with your contention that a twin is not more work. Actual control manipulation, yes- twin and single are identical. My experience of 13 years in the GOM, evenly split between one and two motor machines, is that the intellectual challenge of managing the systems in a multi is a significant increase in work- more complicated procedures re: fuel, electrical, power train, MUST yield more head work. Compare checklists between a 350 and a 355...
Fundamentally, I believe the most dangerous part of the helo is the pilot and most accidents involve perfectly good helicopters. Increase pilot workload unnecessarily, and you unjustifiably increase error probability. The increased workload has to be weighed against the increased risk- IFR, for example. An IFR flight is more complicated than VFR. In IMC, IFR is inarguably safer, or at least more reliable, than a VFR attempt- in spite of the extra workload. Advocating twins as the answer to the infrequent ditching in the GOM is similar to requiring all GOM flights be IFR and IMC. Pilot error is greater hazard than the occasional power loss, even if it does result in you getting wet in a single engine.
Do I prefer twins? No question, yes. But that depends on the specific operation- Operated improperly, a twin is more dangerous, for what gain? The facts you cited appear to be twins preferred inappropriately. How do the number of engines decease the risk of CFIT?
Last edited by Devil 49; 3rd May 2005 at 16:36.