I fly RW only so I am biased.
If I have a mechanical problem in flight - engine stops, electrical failure, hydraulic failure, etc - or a fire warning then usually I can be on the ground in 45 - 60 seconds. Hopefully that gets me out of the danger zone (height to fall, burning in the aircraft, etc) much more quickly than a fixed wing pilot could achieve.
When the weather deteriorates I can fly lower & slower without risk of stall and so keep safe.
When the weather really deteriorates I can put the machine down in any suitable field and wait for conditions to improve, then continue.
When I do need to put the machine down I need something the size of a football penalty area; not a Km of flat ground.
When a RW finally comes to the ground for an emergency landing it might have a a fwd speed at the point of contact of <20knt (anything down to zero) so no need to run into a ditch, tree, rabbit hole at 60knt.
But, I did say that I was biased
To this RW pilot uneducated in FW operation, the only advantages that a FW can claim are
1. less flight critical systems - which is overcome by maintenance (at a financial cost, admittedly); and
2. a longer glide time if the donk stops - which means to me that you get more time to find the Km of flat grass that does not exist
How about looking at accidents where something specific has happened. For example, when the engine stops, when there is an in-flight fire, when there is a control surface failure, etc. What is the likely out-turn for both RW and FW? order the data to show damage to the aircraft, injury, death and cross-reference to the experience of the pilot.
Last edited by John R81; 8th Jul 2012 at 08:27.