I'm hearing knee jerk stuff here, I am typed on single, two and four engine aircraft. Anybody care to discuss it without the two-engines-always-good prejudice?
Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.
We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.
The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer
considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.
Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.
I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot
Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!