"Twins can't take over the market, but I'll always prefer two over one going above me. And I'll be ordering side-impact airbags when I land a nice job flying suits around for the big bucks, but until then, my Volvo tank will just have to do "
THM,
Quite agree, and the overriding factor: Money!! Clients who can be made to appreciate the added safety of a twin will pay for it, those who can't/won't accept the cost of a twin, get what they pay for. My 117 operates, carrying paying passengers, in the sort of conditions that I wouldn't even contemplate putting a single, and would rather walk away from than expose myself and my company to the possible risk of litigation. Fortunately, my clients agree and accept the cost.
Against that, it is a moot point to be operating over built up areas on a regular basis in a single, but the risk isn't seen as such a factor by many, even those professionals amongst us who are posting in this thread. Why? Because everyone does it? Because the clients have been convinced by all the operators offering cut throat rates on 25 year old machines that it is acceptable?
I don't have the answer, and I suspect none of us do. Market forces are driving our industry, from the antiquated offshore support aircraft to the 15,000 hour JetRangers flogging around on general charter. In an ideal world we would get new airframes at least every 10 years, and our choice of single or twin to suit the job and the risk factor. Until then, I'll have to put up with having side impact airbags in my car to drive to work, but providing the client with the machinery that he is willing to pay for, along with every other operator in the business.