JimL
Good balanced answer. Safety is the key. Engine accountability is something else completely not to be confused for safety.
When we look at the increased risk in other areas as a result of having 'engine accountability' this is quite obvious.
It would be a mistake not to take into account the additional risk factors that come with some degree of reduced risk from the specific cause of engines that multi engine should provide. Fuel system problems, many gearbox related incidents, additional tail rotor problems, reduced payload and pilot confusion etc etc
The overwhelming success of forced landings due to engine issues by singles in urban areas is overwhelming evidence of how successful they are, easily qualifiying as a reasonable expectancy. Especially obvious in contrast to the relative lack of success of multi engined helicopters.
Would anyone have a reasonable expectancy for the 300hr girl in Hawaii?
Probably not, shame, we're going to ban something that is not and has not been a problem?
Twins accountable takeoff profile with engine failure permits a crash, although there may well be a 'reasonable expectancy' of no injuries.
(has there just been an EH101 engine related accident?)