MJ has a valid point in the fact that an engine failure is far more likely to occur on takeoff when the engine is stressed and far less likely to fail in the cruise or approach to landing.
Are you sure? Moment by moment you may be right, but more engines have failed in the cruise that on take off.
Hence that emphasis on the need to be very current on EFATO !
Not really. Almost always the only sensible approach to an engine failure that low is to land straight ahead, having remembered to stop the possibility of an almost instant stall. I would suggest the approach to an engine failure after take off is quite different than in the cruise. In fact get the nose down, dont turn too much and there will be little time for much else, the rest is in the lap of the Gods. Pilots I have flown with usually handle these far better than an engine failure in the cruise when they seem a great deal more capable of avoiding the best landing sites and selecting the worst!
As I said I have done hundreds of approaches down to mins both the rvr and cloud base quite often both. None of them have been in a single.
As I said earlier I really dont think that is relevant. It is your choice. Plenty of pilots spend their whole lives flying singles to mins., statistically you really are very very unlikely to suffer an engine failure in a certified well maintained single. Yes of course it might happen, just as you might hit a flock of birds with two engines and have both fail, just as the driver coming towards you might hit you head on. It happens, if you dont like the odds you do as MJ suggests, your choice and no loss of respect for making that choice but I don't think you are entitled to imply those who flying singles to mins are being irrational - in fact you can bet your life if it were that dangerous it would have been banned long ago.
How many catastrophic engine failures have you read about occurring on late final with the cloud base at mins - I cant recall the last one I read?
In fact as we know there is evidence that you are more likely to kill yourself in a light twin than a single. Yeah I know, more to do with the pilot than the extra engine, but there are plenty of twins pilots who will continue on one engine far further than they should - does that give twin pilots a bad reputation?
In fact come to think about it only this week two highly experienced commercial pilots in a CAT seemed to think this was a good idea - indeed they thought it was a good idea to complete almost the whole flight on one engine.
It engine failure on departure which the chute is cock all use for.
Not so - there is plenty of debate about how low the chute might be useful and actual evidence of the effect.
And that one statement finishes the argument, because it epitomises the whole Cirrus/ BRS debate.
Now I am confused? In what way?