Ah yes, the cascade effect.
Step 1, add an extra engine to reduce the risk of flying at night, over hostile terrain, in IMC, over the sea etc,
Step 2, with the added confidence of the extra engine pilots now fly in more "challenging" siutations,
Step 3, the accident rates go up and the pilots get blamed,
Step 4, the insurance companies increase premiums and demand better re-current training,
Step 5, the accident rates go down, but many hang on to the notion twins are more dangerous, which, combined with the increased operating costs, leads to the demise of the twin.
If you want ALL WEATHER capability, are prepared to ensure you are current and well trained, and avoid twins with marginal performance I doubt there is any evidence that twins are more or less safe. In fact if you flew a single in the same weather conditions the twin would probably on average be safer.
Sure twins are more expensive to operate if you exclude depreciation. However their acquistion cost is significantly less than high performance singles which are capbale of competing in speed and all weather performace. For example, compare an Aztec with an "equivalent " single. To make the comparison you need to find a single that is certified for flight in known icing, can cruise at 150 knots or more and carry at least four adults and luggage. The very few singles which fit this profile will almost certainly cost twice as much as a decent Aztec and considerably more than a perfectly serviceable Aztec. That is a signifcant sum of money to put towards the running costs of a twin, whilst earning some interest on it in the mean time.
Of course if you are happy to avoid icing, never carry four adults and luggage, and accept the outcome of a forced landing at night, with low bases, or in the drink in February is probably not going to be pretty, then a single is the answer.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 5th Oct 2008 at 21:30.