Oh goody, another pointless argument about how safe it is to depend on one engine in all circumstances.
It is always fun to watch the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth with any possible slight on their personal icons.
All those singles (yeah, lets chuck the PC9 in too!) had no other option than to land, once the power stopped (or in the case so charmingly referred to by the PC12 legend) to follow the QRH direction for failing oil pressure and land.
The twins that crashed in the referenced examples, may have been as a result of pilot error (or incapacitation in the C90 case), or poor choices from the available options, but they were not as a result of
no option by design.
Why do the PC12, B200 and every other IFR aircraft have two sets of primary flight instruments? In case one fails, as mechanical things are wont to do.
As Wal said, lets hope this stays a hypothetical and we never end up contributing to a thread about the tragic loss of a SE that had a failure when landing safely without power was not possible. Unfortunately, the more they are used in all-weather, all-hours operations, the more likely it becomes. The decision of RFDS WestOps to go back to a twin airframe for higher-risk (ie all-weather, all-hours) operations says something too.
Regarding the Tamworth Metro crash, a crew member survived.
Let me take a step back before the spittle starts flying
and make a minor redirect: The NT Aeromed contract has (I believe) called for B200s so the whole PC12 thing is moot.