It's a funny thing about multi-engine aircraft. We assume that they are inherently "safer" than singles. Statistically, that doesn't always seem to be the case. This explains why so many hospitals in the U.S. have traded their Twin-Stars and BO-105's for Astars and 407's. So my question is: Is this really a "safety" issue?
Why do we use multis in the first place? Is it because continued flight is always assured after the failure of one powerplant? Not in the U.S. it isn't! Nor is it a legal, moral or corporate requirement (
AFAIK on that last part). I believe that the oil companies understand and accept this. The "majors" all have aviation departments, and they do not operate in a vacuum (i.e. the U.S. aviation people talk to the U.K. aviation people). And they're not stupid. The redundancy of the second engine gives us some comfort, but does not guarantee that the aircraft won't end up in the water.
To that end, all twin-engine aircraft in the GOM are equipped with emergency flotation gear and have life rafts installed. All passengers must wear PFD's at all times. About 99.9% of all rigs/platforms in the GOM do not even fall under the US FAA's definition of "extended overwater flight" although that is changing as exploration heads deeper.
Except for a very short period between January and early March, the Gulf Of Mexico itself is surviveably warm. The weather in the Gulf is fairly benign
most of the time. Many aircraft- both singles and twins- have been successfully ditched with no injury or loss of life.
Without the ability to continue flight on only one engine from every flight regime, a twin is going into the water if one quits at an inopportune time. But even if it can continue flight, without enough fuel to fly back to the beach a twin may still go in the water after an engine failure if the crew does not feel like putting it on a rig/platform.
Statistically, the FAA and insurance companies must have extensive experience with twin-engine operations in the GOM. I wonder just how many engine-failures the twins have? What's the calculated risk? And just how far do we go to insulate ourselves or guard against
every possible failure mode in a helicopter?
I guess it gets back to: Is this unacceptable? Is this unsafe? We'd like to make the issue as black/white as possible, but I think it's not that simple. Operators in the U.K. do things one way. Operators in the U.S. do things differently. But before coming to any firm conclusion as to which way is better, I think some questions need to be asked...and answered.
P.S. As a pilot, I know which way I prefer- and that would be to guarantee that I'll be able to keep my feet dry at all times
