Crab your answer helps greatly because it highlights with great clarity the point that I am trying to make.
The focus on engines specifically as the cause of the forced landing is a distortion. Just to take that causual factor in isolation is not acheiving the objective.
If the cost for twins of not having to land due to engine issues is a higher chance of other causes (of higher mass, more catestrophic arrivals into people's roofs) then the main objective will not have been acheived.
"TR and gearbox failure will bring them all down so don't try and skew the stats with those."
The risk assosciated with complex gearboxes, with extra freewheel, combining of different torque inputs many stages of speed reduction, many multiply non-redundant components (planetary gears, bearings etc), is clearly a higher inherent risk. If that is part of the cost then it must be factored in.
The same applies to the TR, for more subtle reasons. It also applies to the pilots, particularly in relation to more complex systems leading to greater chance of pilot error.
So it isn't skewing the stats, it is a directly linked 'price to pay'.
Thanks for engaging seriously this time.
100 helicopters for 1000hrs might result in 1 engine failure, the chance of that being 'successful' is 99 out of 100
So that's about 1 catastrophy per 10000 years approximately (for the engine cause). That beats the twin record easily. This legislation is counter productive and pointless.