As I said: "Yes the twin has a place in risk reduction - but it's not always safer. "
So, yes, under some circumstances twins can actually be safer - the extent and the circumstances are often exaggerated.
Soggy said: "Just because there may have been no recorded instances of an engine failure when these profiles are being flown does not mean there never will - Mr Murphy will always be around to guarantee that. " - sure but
if they have never been used and they increase risk in other ways then isn't it fair to look at them again?
If you are
exposed in an aircraft which needs two engines both working then the risk is greater than had you only had one.
Old Man: I did express my surprise that noone had benefitted from the use of these profiles - and none had. Obviously you are now a big fan of them. Do you maintain that that was actually a ZERO risk event for you? Hopefully not! - what were you thinking doing a test over "houses or schools or buildings" anyway - or where your "houses schools or buidings" theoretical ones which fortunately, since you made them up, were no taller than 35ft?
Mind you you probably wouldn't make the news by hitting a theoretical building !
Old Man: you said (while being mildly insulting ... but fair enough): "or ask questions to gain that knowledge" - I thought I was asking: Has anyone had an engine failure during the climbing upwards and backwards bit (ie after hover and before CDP (or is it TDP?)) -
I guess that's still no-one is it?
But seriously thanks for the education - it's true I had actually forgotten the EXPOSURE time concepts of these CAT B profiles and yes of course the risk is minimal - the greater benefit being derived from the prolonged Exposure to a Hostile Landing Environment - It's a clear example of a single engined aircraft being safer for a short phase of the flight but the twin probably being superior in view of the prolonged exposure time. (mind you.....)
If you just run the calculations in accordance with the published regulations you can compute the exposure time required to make a CAT A twin safer. It is suprisingly long. Don't make me go and look it up again..... I can't be arsed....
The table of statistics (pointed out by Nick Lappos) published on the twins/singles thread clearly shows the higher risk of twins.
Is there a big problem in the Gulf of Mexico from running singles?
- I don't think so.
Finally - yes I am recieving something of an education - in a subject which I do know
something (though not much)about - I have actually dabbled at flying a couple of times - but I have to say I am partially tounge in check while pulling the odd leg and seem to have hit a raw nerve.... and I don't really want to offend against anyones 'pet theories' even if they are a perverted bastardisation of the principals of aviating (tongue, cheek, leg, nerve)
If a statistician in a major regulatory authority were moved when 'caught' analysing these figures - would that be a scandal?
?