AnFI,
I'm not sure I would characterise myself as pro-twin but as pro-passenger safety. Like most helicopter pilots, I have flown many more singles than twins and enjoyed doing so. If I have a preference for a helicopter, it is one that gets the job done the most efficiently. The satisfaction in having moved several hundred passengers in a shuttle is enduring.
I have no wish to prolong this thread as I see it as 'question asked', 'question answered'. The only reason I have returned to post is to correct a misconception that appears to be taxing some.
It is quite worrying when a group of professionals need to gather to discuss a phrase that permeates the ICAO Standard and European Regulations and is defined in both. When Tees introduced the phase 'safe forced landing' he was being precise in his use of language; it wasn't to start a debate about 'forced landing' or 'safe' or whether the pilot of the Robinson had done her best, it was to question whether she had met (or was likely to meet) the conditions set out in the definition (or the plain language construct used in most State's regulations).
The term, when used in the ICAO Standard, has a precise meaning - shown in the definition:
Safe forced landing. Unavoidable landing or ditching with a reasonable expectancy of no injuries to persons in the aircraft or on the surface.
The implication is whether it was even possible to meet these conditions in the area in which she chose to fly, or whether a flight, under those conditions, was legal in the State in which the flight was undertaken.
No opinion is offered, judge for yourselves by looking up the references shown in my previous two posts and re-examining the video.
Jim