Bravo - I think I see why some people support twins now. is it because they are too thick to understand that this is an example of why singles are a good idea.
This is a successful outcome further undermining the justification for twins.
Is it worth having a gearbox failure to avoid this outcome - er? NO!
Pay the performance penalty of lugging a spare engine/gbox/fuel around?
All those extra "critical component.hours" incurred?
All those crammed in pax tripping over their 'just in case' STASS, tangled in their lifejacket, cumbersome in their survival suits trying to get down a corridor to a window before the top heavy twin capsizes, at night, in a swell ! Doh!
Gimme a calm auto in a 407 anyday.
Get a grip noooby - an engine failure needs to have an x% chance of being fatal to justify the other downsides of a twin.
x is probably in the region of 90.
Jungle - twin
Northsea - evens
GOM - single
Green 'auto-friendly grass' - ban twins
There's no honest maths in this debate: corrupt