I'm sure the next of kin will be greatly heartened to hear that their relatives deaths were a statistical improbability! (Red face test, anybody?)
No one is arguing that CFIT does not cause more accidents than engine failures, nor that all engine failure occur during take off or landing. One thing is certain though: if you do have an engine shutdown in flight, it will result in an OEI landing!
There will be many cases of inflight shutdowns in twins that do not result in accidents (and hence appearing in the statistics) being used for comparison. Er, that's the point!
You do not have to have an engine failure to have an inflight shutdown (chip?). Similarly, an engine may lose power without 'failing' (P3 bleed leak on a PT-6?)
The IHST has been mentioned, and OGP. They are adopting many or all of the Shell Group guidelines in the '7/7=1' initiative (no, not a learning programme for pilots!) within which, PC1 and PC2e are but one element. CFIT, Simulator training, design standards and other elements are all considered as, or more, important, with statistical analysis to back it up.
The point is, that you can tick all the boxes you want against the key causes of accidents (EGPWS fitted--Check, TCAS fitted--Check etc) but at some point you need to consider aircraft performance in both the certification and then the subsequent operating regulations, regardless of how large a factor in accidents it is. Clearly, it is not a "no factor" element. If your approach to taking off is "lets pull and go, and rely on statistics that we won't end up in that forest, built up area, lake, etc" then you may gloss over that part. If you take the view that the passengers deserve to be served by operational standards not disimilar to those used on small commuter turboprops, then you make take another view.
Take the 'wife and kids test'
