Please be open minded about the development of SET operations but unless you have thoroughly evaluated both the aircraft, the equipment, the training required and the proposed regulations please don't shoot from the hip and make unsubstantiated or emotional comments.
Many thanks for that insight Gordon.
I think personally it all gets back to what a person is willing to accept in their perception of risk. Flew thousands of hours over water single engine (Bell 205 with T-53) in my youth knowing that a ditching in the often bad weather we had would result in our demise. Occasionally used to look at the blown spume and give Mr. Lycoming thanks for a solid product, but not something I, or the rest of the pilots, worried about. The only time we had an engine failure, and ditching, was when the engine swallowed part of the FOD screen due fatigue.
Talking to a few young PC-12 pilots engaged in a lot of night work over inhospitable country side say that engine failure is a concern. One was very happy to give up the PC-12 for a job on a King Air with two PT-6 employed in the same role.
Just one question Gordon, why was the failure rate of the PT-6 in twin installations not considered as part of the failure rate? SIL had PT-6 spit the chips, 1,000 hours on brand new airframe and engine just recently, but had another to bring him home (King Air). Think it was a stator let go.
There are additional factors to take into consideration flying IMC in SE. Richard Collins wrote much on the subject, clear air below the cloud base in the event of a failure in order to set up for the forced landing being one he cited. But once again, it's what risk you are willing to accept IMHO. Not everyone enjoys fun park rides, bungee jumping or skydiving. Motorbikes are out for me, though see the attraction.