but I think you have a basic misunderstanding of stats. It is a fact that the fatality rate (or any other incident rate that you care to pick) of SE turboprops is around several times lower than that of piston twins - regardless of how the piston twins are operated
With the greatest of respect and not wanting to commence the usual prune back and forth which I try to stay away from.
My understanding of stats is pretty sound. And my point stands, one can make them look however one wants to.
There are many many thousands more piston twins in the world than turbine singles. It stands there are therefore more accidents. Also the piston twin fleet is generally much older, Cessna 310 fuel system anyone? So comparing a rate per 100000 hours or any other comparison generally doen't stand scrutiny.
My post was comparing single engine pistons with multi engine pistons, and the added safety factor the second engine provides. And also an attempt to dispel the naysayers that say anyone who touches a piston twin will die a horrid death. I've flown them for years and am still about.
I hear the 'double chance of engine failure' line a lot from Pilatus and TBM. And it hacks me off every time. Generally they are comparing their new machines to turbine twins. And it really is just a play on words. At the end of the day if the singles engine quits you are going one way. And if it quits at height you are starting that journey very quickly to recover cabin alt. In the turbine twin if an engine fails it's no big deal.
My example at the end, whilst tongue in cheek is still very very valid. Which machine do you think those pax would rather have been in?