With respect to your comments:
I hear the 'double chance of engine failure' line a lot from Pilatus and TBM.
and related
Oh please, save me from this tosh.
I would like to add the following:
1) Statistically, a piston twin will have about double the chance of an engine failure as a comparable piston single
2) Whilst hopefully nobody disputes this statistical fact, this is
not meant an argument to sell a single engine piston by claiming they are "safer".
3) As most people will know, engine failures are extremely rare and engine failures leading to an accident are very rare. We are talking about x per 10^6 flying hours here. That is why statistics show virtually no difference in accident rates between turbo singles and turbo twins (which is what the TBM brigade likes to talk about, but which is irrelevant in a discussion whether it is a good idea to
learn to fly a initio in a twin)
4) The reason I mentioned it is because uninformed people (like his missus) believe that multi-engine aircraft are safer than single-engine aircraft regardless of who is flying them. This is of course NOT the case. "Low on class" pilots have a higher relative fatality rate in MEL than in SEL. The statistics (FAA data 1980-2000) are not giving the true picture, because most Multi-Engine beginners have already 200+ hours under their belt, unlike vjmehra here, who would graduate with a little over 100 hours...
5) In conclusion, I think Missus Mehra would be safer flying with VJ in a single than VJ in a twin. Their chances of making it safe and sound to 500 flight hours are significantly higher. The insurance companies seem to agree with this reasoning.
And also an attempt to dispel the naysayers that say anyone who touches a piston twin will die a horrid death.
Nobody said that or inferred that. Flying the family Duchess (I wish !) I would have about a 2.5 in 100,000 flight hours of buying it. VJ, at the end of his little twin training tour, would have about 10 times that chance in his first post PPL flying year (making some assumptions about independence of general non-ifr / non-commercial accident statistics and low class hour statistics and using admittedly a "dated" data set).
So not exactly
certain horrid death, but (assuming he does 50 hours in his first PPL year) about 1.25% chance, with another 5%-odd chance of a non-fatal (but potentially expensive) accident. Which is why no sensible insurer will want to underwrite him.
My conclusion remains that it doesn't make sense as a project because
- it costs more than double to complete the training.
- it puts you in a less safe situation after completion.
Safe flying (whether in a twin or a single) !