QMAX,
Yet again. I think you'll find that OMR was not carrying out a test over houses or whatever. He was merely pointing out that during a check flight, with the aircraft ballasted to the maximum allowable weight for the profile in the prevailing conditions, ON AN UPWARD AND REARWARD HELIPAD TAKE-OFF HE ACTUALLY DID SUFFER A REAL ENGINE FAILURE AT CDP (correct phraseology as it is a Category A/Performance Class 1, or equivalent, take-off). The reference to 35 feet is just standard for this type of take-off as the certificated profile calls for a flyaway with an allowable descent, which must nevertheless clear all obstacles on the continued take-off flightpath by a minimum vertical separation of 35 feet.
Having had a couple of engine failures in twins, which have always resulted in my being able to return to a site at which I was able to make a safe landing; and always in circumstances which would have caused me to make a survivable, but unsafe landing had I been in a single, I still can't see how a single would have been safer. None of these aircraft needed 2 engines, they just had them - or by 'need' do you mean that the aircraft is incapable of flight at, or near max gross mass, on one of its engines?
