Among my engine problems was one in a twin. The aircraft was all but brand new. Half a million pounds of aircraft. It transpired a bolt had come adrift (which wasn't required to be wired at that time), nine times out of ten it would have fallen harmlessly to ground (well at least harmlessly unless someones head or green house just happened to be in the way) but instead it was caught in the belt that drives the pump that cools the engine (diesel are water cooled). So the engine proceeded to cook itself. The trouble is when an engine cooks itself you are never quite certain that is precisely whats happening, nor are you certain of the extent of a risk of a fire.
So I well understand Pace's point. A brand new aircraft is no surety that there will not be a catastrophic failure, nor that the failure will not be complete in little more than a few minutes. Then the options present themselves. Do you carry the failed engine any distance not being quite sure of the extent of the risk of a fire?
These are the potential conundrums that can and do occur. It doesn't matter how new or old the aircraft. I could relate a similar experience in a single. Strangely there is less difference that one might imagine in some respects. On the one hand if the engine fails in a single at least you have no choices, but until and unless it does, its not always easy to access whether it will fail, any more than it is to assume that certain failures in a twin will not result in a catastrophic fire or other emergency which endangers the flight.
I understand the point I think Pace seeks to make.