Tademrotor,
I think you've put me on the wrong side of the argument. I was trying to say that even if you accept AnFi's argument that as engines have become more reliable the different between a single and a twin may be a little less than it was, and that a double engine failure may not be quite as statistically unlikely as some may think, i don't agree with the conclusion that just because a single may be nearly as safe as a twin that the CAA should allow singles for operations currently permitted for only twins.
The conclusion I would draw is that a twin is nearly as unsafe as a single in those operations (particularly with other factors taken into consideration) - which is just meant as a reminder to us all whether we have 20 hours or 20,000 hours, whether we are in a single or a twin, never to get complacent!
As regards, chopjock's question about why the CAA are mandating twins. Can you really see them changing it - the press would have a field day on the first crash of a single performing an operation previously reserved for twins only. And in any case, however unlikely something is statistically it is still possible - I'd not want to be the person in the CAA weighing the balance of the additional cost of a twin versus the statistical likelihood of it saving a life or not regardless of where the balance lay!
Matthew
P.S. I'm quite happy to be open about my (lack of) experience, but please read my opinions before dismissing them, thanks.
Last edited by mdovey; 27th Mar 2014 at 13:42.