I actually achieved a whole new view of the matter.
Apparently:
1. An engine failure on a quad is considered a “simple failure” ….
2. …. with such a “simple failure” today’s quad captains are trained well enough to be able to decide to continue over poles and deserts for many hours, because ….
3. …. they are constantly assisted by competent maintenance departments that give them sound advice ….
4. …. without ever disclaiming any of such ….
5. …. over regions that guarantee constant connection via datalink or satcom ….
6. …. further assisted by network control that put safety absolutely above any commercial reasons ….
7. …. and because double failures are statistcally so rare to be discarded
So far so good, my gut feeling however always knock at my conscience.
My take is:
1. …. not to me anyway. An engine failure is a serious malfunction, be it on a quad or not.
2. …. having spent many years in the sandpit I have my reservations ….
3. …. dito ….
4. …. having received many of such, it was always very unpleasantly present ….
5. …. 4 hours not uncommon ….
6. .... let’s not dig too deep here ….
7. …. just lately two same components failed on the same whale flight, leading to unusable fuel and diversion ….
I know it’s reheated in the microwave, but experienced and avid aviators never consider an engine failure as a “simple failure”. Others scare me.