Hey Al,
Thanks for the emotive response, very nice. If you could address the points that I raised in my previous post with some hard facts rather than just your personal opinion that would help the discussion all round.
I operate both multi engine and single engine aircraft and personally don't have a problem with either. Based on the facts I am just as safe in the single as I am the twin.
but they were not as a result of no option by design.
Correct, and this just highlights the fact that despite having two engines there is no 100% guarantee that you will walk away from an engine failure in a multi just as there is no 100% guarantee that the engine won't fail in a single. Both of the accidents I referred to involved aircraft that were "designed" to fly away with one engine inoperative. The fact is "the design" didn't help and the crew (albiet one member in the Tamworth accident) payed the ultimate sacrifice. This gets me back to my original question, of the single engine turbine failures you listed how many resulted in fatalities?
Still waiting on the evidence from you that VH-FMC experienced an engine failure as you stated above; or are you happy to make up the story to support your argument that you "feel" safer in the multi?
The decision of RFDS West Ops to go back to a twin airframe for higher-risk (ie all-weather, all-hours) operations says something too
Also if you can back this statement up with some facts that would be appreciated rather than just some hearsay from your mates at the local aero club / legend aviators bar.