I really get conflicted emotions reading this stuff...for fifty five years I had deluded myself in the belief that having more than one engine on an airplane somehow gave me a better safety margin......
......now I read this and my emotions are difficult to describe thinking I had been wrong for all those years.
Twins were never intended to be "safer." The concept of the extra engine is an increase in climb performance, as extra thrust equates to climb performance. Richard Collins spearheaded efforts to convince the flying public of any concept that the extra engine represents "safety" beginning back in the 70's, so that's no new concept, and it's been heavily taught as a potential pilot trap for several decades. The extra engine was never there to "reduce fatalities." It's there to boost performance.
Then my heart slowed down and I have recovered from some of the shock when I read this.
The extra engine, if managed correctly, does exist to provide redundant systems support, from additional hydraulic to additional pneumatic, vacum, and electrical power...and the twin can do something else that the single can't...continue flying for an extended distance after an engine failure. An extra engine often enables a light airplane to carry more, usually a little faster, and to climb higher faster. Like any increase in performance and capability, it also requires additional training and preparation...and recurrent, regular training.
For a brief moment I feared I had been living in a time warp and the several times I spent hours flying to an airport on one engine having feathered and shut down an engine were just my imagination and those flights never happened.
The most rewarding thing about this is the boost to my self confidence I feel knowing that somehow I managed to " manage it correctly " words can not describe my feelings of accomplishment.
