Well at least it is now accepted that the maths used to justify the twin concept is false, unchallenged because it is demonstrably rubbish. That is progress.
The next thing to be understood is that (obviously) there will be less enroute engine failure forced landings in the twin, but it must be weighed up against all the other (previously itemised) consequential accidents and the degree of accident that might result. (GBoxes, fuel systems etc etc etc)
There is no valid statistical case against the single when all factors are considered.
This is not to say there are not merits to the twin - just like the different types are better suited to different tasks.
Shyt I didn't mean to ignore your 2 engine failures (statistically amazing!) in twins during the reversing climb process before TDP. I would genuinely love to know the details. ?
The old Allison used to have a failure rate of something like 1 per 400 hours in the early days, it would not be suprising for that to cause people to feel a big attraction to the twin. The Scout used to have an absurd engine failure rate, but the Gazelle and the 1B1 really don't fail enough to justify the downsides of the twin. The weight spent on spare engines might be better spent having bigger power, tail rotor, fuel and other critical component margins
One factor, hard to pin down, is the proportion of time flown when 'exposed'. If the exposure time is only 10% of the flight time it may well work out to be not worhtwhile to have a twin, whereas if the proportion of time 'exposed' is 99% of the time it may be worth the other accidents. It would be worth having a handle on what reliability related to what %age of exposure time. It is most certainly not 'all or nothing'.
Thanks for the support or respect, from the fair minded, for some of my points.