twistedenginestarter:
The whole thing about safety is if you blame the engine failure, or the poor performance of Cessna twins, or the pilot who just plain made a devastating mistake, you are missing the point. The point is for each adverse event, what can you do to neutralize the threat.
Sorry, can't agree with that.
The performance of the aircraft is not a variable (nor even an "adverse event")- the point is, that if you fly an aircraft with marginal performance, you
have to be up to the challenge if it all goes wrong. Most piston twins leave little margin for error, so require far more skill and precision in an emergency.
It has always amused me that, for every new type I have flown, the difficulty level of an emergency has reduced (and, paradoxically, the salary level has increased).
You can't "neutralise the threat" of light twin performance unless you change the nature of light twins. The
only thing you can do to reduce the risks is to ensure the pilot is fully up to the task, with an absolute commitment to carrying out the correct procedure (in this case, identify the failed engine correctly and/or put the aircraft down straight ahead,
under control.
Sadly, in the GA world (and I was no different when I was flying light twins), there is too often a tendency to try and save the aircraft by getting back to the field when it really isn't an option, with the predictable disasterous consequences. Very, very few light twin drivers have the depth of experience or training that their jobs require- I certainly didn't and count myself lucky to have got through that phase of my career unscathed. Hindsight...