So Shytorque we are speculating why it crashed. You seem to be saying it crashed because it had but one engine and if it had two the pilot and passenger would have still been alive? (or this flight occurred in the UK)
You might be speculating but I'm not. I'll wait for the accident report, thanks.
No, total rubbish. I've not said that the number of engines or geographical location was the cause, you've made that up. I have no idea why this accident occurred. My discussion has revolved around the differences in legislation between CAA and FAA and the history and reasoning behind the UK standpoint of not allowing single engined, and by definition VFR only, helicopter charters by night.
FYI, Regarding engines, I've absolutely
nil personal objection to singles being operated under IFR in IMC provided they are properly equipped (been there, done that, used to be allowed in UK). I've been flying turbine engined rotary for a living since 1977, both single and twins, and never suffered any engine failure at all. A few I've had to shut down at short notice, in IMC as it happens (e.g. chip lights, oil overtemp), but no actual sudden failure. However, as someone else has mentioned, two engines isn't the real issue, it's the systems and redundancy that go with two engines that needs to be borne in mind.
Gomer pilot has it in one:
However, there is no way to break even, much less make a profit, using twin-engine two-pilot helicopters. And profit is the overriding issue, make no mistake about that.
This is exactly why the UK authority stepped in and legislated VFR singles out of the night flying charter market. The market could not self regulate. As I said in a previous post, if regulations level the playing field then the end result is that the price of the job goes up. It's then up to the customer to decide if it's worth it or not.