terminus
much truth in what you say with a little muddled thinking also:
2 ditchings in GoM: 1 was just an ordinary landing due Engine Failure - proving that 2 engines were not required in that case.
The other I don't know the cause of but it appears that it "struck the water" , maybe engine failure but unlikely if you have enough energy to 'strike the water' (and damage the helicopter so badly) then you probably have enough energy to flare and land gently. Was the second one and engine fail? Anyone know yet?
"Saying that components on a S-92 or EC225 are more stressed is garbage."
It is true that it becomes less important at bigger scale. It is very true for the lightest twins and progressively less significant for larger machines where the payload wasted (or invested, depending on how you see it) by carrying spare engines becomes a smaller proportion.
but if you spend payload on something not neccessary then it does cost you margins elswhere.
For example: If it were mandated to carry 500kgs of Lead (Pb) then clearly this would impact not only the margins of other critical components but also cause more time exposure of tailrotors (etc) per payload.mile, fuel reserve etc etc
If the 500kgs of Lead were useful to the extent that it was worth the downside then it would be an improvement. So it is not garbage , although it may not be highly significant.