Anfi, Jim quite clearly stated that the risk of an
unconnected second engine failure (he even underlined it himself) used the square rule, whereas in the Meadows case the second death could not be considered unconnected as both babies were genetically and environmentally linked. One could say that this is analagous to a twin engine installation, however the whole purpose of the Cat A certification standards is to try and remove that 'environmental link' so far as is possible though isolation and protection features.
Would you also agree with me that it's not the risk of forced landing through the 'engine failure' cause but any cause which needs to be factored in?
Most twin engined helicopters today have EFIS, Autopilots, EGPWS, TCAS and FADECs, are certified for IFR and are operated two crew. Within that list, there is plenty to reduce the risk of an accident from causes more common than engine failure, and most of those items are not present in a single!
One must also remember that there are other reasons to end up on one engine in a twin, beside a straight forward failure - such as chip lights, fire warnings etc - and in fact you may have one engine at idle rather than shutdown. Better to carry out a precautionary shutdown (or retard a throttle) and head home, rather than ditch - surely!