Jan
I have not suggested in this thread we shouldnt be prepared for an engine failure.
Clearly engines fail, and clearly you might be "unlucky" and have your one in 4,000 hours failure in your first 100 hours.
However, as with so much in aviation, engine failure is just another risk we assess and take a view on.
One view is never fly a single. There are other views. Dont fly over rough terrain, dont fly over a low undercast, dont fly over water, particularly rough water, dont fly up mountain passes especially if there is only one way out and a fire raging at the same end.
In other words there are lots of things many do in a single which are patently unsafe if you take into account that the engine could fail at any moment. You would for example almost certainly never fly on a dark night.
I guess that sums up the problem I had with Guppy's post and some others on here. You can end up fly around being permanently obsessed that the engine is about to fail on you, whereas in fact you would be far better off assessing the risk in the first place and then making certain you had a strategy to deal with the risk whilst being confident you could enact that strategy. Do you drive on the road expecting a blow out at every moment? Do you expect the U/J to collapse on you as you are going around a bend. I have actually had both happen to me, but I didnt expect either. In fact a blow out on a motorway at 70+ mph is probably more dangerous than an engine failure in most situations.
I recall many many years ago a flight with an RAF fast jet pilot, training captain and a string of experiences and flying time very few will ever achieve. We flew along the wet side of some sea cliffs about cliff top high. The view was glorious, the experience brilliant. Fresh out of training I inevitably asked where he would go if the engine suddenly quit. He gave a wry smile, pointed out we would never make it over the cliffs so the choice was easy - we would land straight ahead in the drink. He said, if it happens we will deal with it. In short he had a plan, knew instantly what course of action he would take, knew that there was a higher than average risk running low level along those cliffs, but felt the rewards outweighed the risk. The plan was simple but effective, the risk of losing control of the aircraft almost nil, but more than a degree of injury risk involved with the final ditching.
So in my view I think it is far more important to decide what level of risk we are willing to accept. Having made that decision we should ensure we have a strategy for dealing with an engine failure but beyond that not obssess about something happening that with luck we may never experience.
Realistically the point about being a private pilot and flying 20, 30 or 40 hours a year as many do is that your skill levels will never be comparable with those flying 1,000 hours a year, or having a sim session every six months. I would rather see that pilot ahev the strategy in place to reduce the risk of an engine failure in the first instance, then have a clear understanding of when you are placing yourself in a high risk situation, and, finally, having a strategy for dealing with a failure that is good enough for that pilot's flying skills.
In sailing we teach various techniques for recovering a MOB. A MOB is every bit as life threatening for the man in the water as an engine failure. We teach a recovery that isnt elegant, but will work in most circumstances and for most helms and crews even if their handling skills are somewhat ham fisted. Why? Simply, because it was realised some while back that although there are "better" ways of recovering a MOB they are only "better" in experienced hands and many of those helms and crews involved simply do not have the experience necessary.
Knowing that one must choose to put the fuselage between tree-trunks in order to let the wings take the impact, for example, may save your life
and you see for these reasons that is why I think comments such as this are just so far fetched, but often trotted out by pilots whose flying "careers" are at best suspect. There is obviously some thruth in the comment but the fact of the matter is for most low time private pilots the priorities are keep control of the aircraft at all cost, dont try and do anything fancy, make sure the aircraft is as fire and exit safe as possible before you land, and whatever else you do land the aircraft without stalling. If you then just happen to see two trees rushing towards you that have popped up in the middle of your landing area with a gap that is just wide enough to fit the fusealage through and not the wings and you are running straight ahead along the ground and actually have the control of the sliding aircraft and the thought time to do something about it by all means go through the middle - otherwise leave it to Harrison and the special effects guys in the movies.
Sadly real life and the movies are often some way apart.