What's more important Public or Flight Safety?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ascend & Shawn: What great posts. I'm sitting here in the UK thinking how the hell are we going to make a change for the better when the reaction of those in a position of influence is tantamount to a jammed AH on a bad day ?
Then I read what you say and I hope - hope - that your words will peel some layers off some very blinkered eyes.
Pro-active law enforcement by ground and air support in the UK is virtually non-existent because of cost. It is all reactive.
It's not what the public wants - and it certainly can't be what the police want. Did these guys really sign up to sit on their rumps most of the day not doing what they are trained to do?
When they do work, they are brilliant and the best.
Then I read what you say and I hope - hope - that your words will peel some layers off some very blinkered eyes.
Pro-active law enforcement by ground and air support in the UK is virtually non-existent because of cost. It is all reactive.
It's not what the public wants - and it certainly can't be what the police want. Did these guys really sign up to sit on their rumps most of the day not doing what they are trained to do?
When they do work, they are brilliant and the best.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CsC,
I think you have hit the nail on the head with this post, as far as the UK is concerned. In the UK, the Home Office are the central government department who look after the police and the CAA look after aviation safety. The CAA have managed to get themselves into a position where no one is looking over their shoulder, so long as they do not require money from central funds and an airliner does not crash into Central London. In large measure the 2 of them don't really coordinate or integrate their decision making. The CAA just ask for ever higher standards, without really (IMHO) looking at risk at all. In the grand scheme of things police aviation is a tiny part of the HO's area, and there is precious little rigid audit or assessment of police aviation performance at the moment, never mind alternatives.
Essentially, the question never gets asked.
From the views expressed by (most) of the UK police pilots on this thread they are rigidly against any such "blue sky" thinking, so the workforce are not going to be pushing for change either. In a sense you can hardly blame them - as an individual who would not rather fly a twin with lots of technological assistance than a basic single?
I think you have hit the nail on the head with this post, as far as the UK is concerned. In the UK, the Home Office are the central government department who look after the police and the CAA look after aviation safety. The CAA have managed to get themselves into a position where no one is looking over their shoulder, so long as they do not require money from central funds and an airliner does not crash into Central London. In large measure the 2 of them don't really coordinate or integrate their decision making. The CAA just ask for ever higher standards, without really (IMHO) looking at risk at all. In the grand scheme of things police aviation is a tiny part of the HO's area, and there is precious little rigid audit or assessment of police aviation performance at the moment, never mind alternatives.
Essentially, the question never gets asked.
From the views expressed by (most) of the UK police pilots on this thread they are rigidly against any such "blue sky" thinking, so the workforce are not going to be pushing for change either. In a sense you can hardly blame them - as an individual who would not rather fly a twin with lots of technological assistance than a basic single?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomber, YES.
Look at it this way. Is it more efficient to have the ground police officers waiting in a central location for a call. You could cut the overhead by a fair amount. Why be pro-active at all? Bet the crime would skyrocket.
Look at it this way. Is it more efficient to have the ground police officers waiting in a central location for a call. You could cut the overhead by a fair amount. Why be pro-active at all? Bet the crime would skyrocket.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It was an interesting flight, and served to show several examples of why the 'continuous patrol' was, for this operation, a good thing.
Immediately after takeoff, we were tasked to look for a gun that may have been thrown onto a roof during a routine stop by a ground unit.
Shortly after that, we were cruising along, and the observer gave an 'Orbit left' command. I thought I'd missed a radio call, and after a couple of orbits, asked if I had missed something. The observer said- no, there were no radio calls, but the area we had just flown over had a bad history of drive by shootings, and there were some cars down there he didn't like the look of, and so we orbitted there.
And they were never more than 5-7 minutes away from anywhere in their operations area, and were monitoring at least 5 different police agency frequncies. I couldn't keep up with the radios, but they could filter the stuff very nicely.
So, it may appear to be 'wasted time', but they don't think so, and neither do the people who pay to keep them up there.
As for DOCs, surely the insurance and interest payments for a twin are an order of magnitude more than an R-44.
And the police officers on the street feel a lot happier just knowing they have some top cover quickly if they need it.
There is no filtering of the request from a centralized ground station to make a launch decision (would they do that for a ground unit???)
It was a very professionally run operation and obviously supported enthusiastically by the policitians who had to approve the budgets.
Immediately after takeoff, we were tasked to look for a gun that may have been thrown onto a roof during a routine stop by a ground unit.
Shortly after that, we were cruising along, and the observer gave an 'Orbit left' command. I thought I'd missed a radio call, and after a couple of orbits, asked if I had missed something. The observer said- no, there were no radio calls, but the area we had just flown over had a bad history of drive by shootings, and there were some cars down there he didn't like the look of, and so we orbitted there.
And they were never more than 5-7 minutes away from anywhere in their operations area, and were monitoring at least 5 different police agency frequncies. I couldn't keep up with the radios, but they could filter the stuff very nicely.
So, it may appear to be 'wasted time', but they don't think so, and neither do the people who pay to keep them up there.
As for DOCs, surely the insurance and interest payments for a twin are an order of magnitude more than an R-44.
And the police officers on the street feel a lot happier just knowing they have some top cover quickly if they need it.
There is no filtering of the request from a centralized ground station to make a launch decision (would they do that for a ground unit???)
It was a very professionally run operation and obviously supported enthusiastically by the policitians who had to approve the budgets.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC - your obviously not in the accounts department!
Cost of operating the aircraft
(Fixed Costs + DOC/hr) / Number of hours flown.
Normally fixed costs are:
Insurance
Cost of the cash (whether yours, taxpayers or whoever)
Crew - possibly the largest cost.
Direct Costs:
Fuel
Oil
Maintenance - which could be fixed in some cases
Overhaul reserves - whichever way it's worked.
I would be surprised that your operations are not on PBH on both the airframe and engines.
To increase the efficiency in anyones mind as you posted yourself is to fly more hours. The Americans by your own statement get 3.6 times for the same amount of money!
What Shawn Coyle was probably alluding to was that an extra aircraft only costs insurance and cash servicing.
Somebody refferred here that UK police operators only fly on average 3.5 hours a day. What do you do the rest of the time? Under Part 91 there are no flight or duty time restrictions. In fact some of these operations could be under Part nothing at all!
Cost of operating the aircraft
(Fixed Costs + DOC/hr) / Number of hours flown.
Normally fixed costs are:
Insurance
Cost of the cash (whether yours, taxpayers or whoever)
Crew - possibly the largest cost.
Direct Costs:
Fuel
Oil
Maintenance - which could be fixed in some cases
Overhaul reserves - whichever way it's worked.
I would be surprised that your operations are not on PBH on both the airframe and engines.
To increase the efficiency in anyones mind as you posted yourself is to fly more hours. The Americans by your own statement get 3.6 times for the same amount of money!
What Shawn Coyle was probably alluding to was that an extra aircraft only costs insurance and cash servicing.
Somebody refferred here that UK police operators only fly on average 3.5 hours a day. What do you do the rest of the time? Under Part 91 there are no flight or duty time restrictions. In fact some of these operations could be under Part nothing at all!
As far as the question regarding military training on piston helis goes - we don't train on pistons because the contract was let several years ago when the Defence Helicopter Flying School (DHFS) was set up, following concerns that 3 Services, Army Navy and RAF, were training on the same aircraft (Gazelle) at 3 different locations and thge asumption that therefore there should be some economies of scale to be gained by combining them.
Then the decision had to be made on which helicopter type and which contractor to provide the aircraft and engineering support.
Now you will ask why the piston helis didn't get a look in, and it's mainly because no-one wanted them. At the time the only option was the R22 which had such a horrendous record in terms of training accidents (dynamic rollover, mast bumping, running out of power) that nobody, who knew what was involved in Military flying training, would have looked twice at them.
Just for once, in Military procurement, the bean counters didn't get their way; it would have been very easy to make a financial case for using R22s instead of Squirrels purely based on operating costs with no regard given to performance. One of the requirements of the desired aircraft was that it should be capable of flying at 120 kts which clearly ruled out the R22. Actually it should have said cruise at 120 and dash at 140 but someone missed that bit out and the DHFS Squirrels are torque limited to preserve airframe and engine life to the benefit of the contractor.
I don't know what the R44s top speed is but even if it was fast enough it is still a Robinson and as such is better suited to being gently bimbled round the sky rather than the hard life that the Squirrel (very successfully) endures as the workhorse of DHFS.
We don't spend that long teaching pilots to physically fly a helicopter, that is the easy bit and anyone who can drive a car can learn to fly a helicopter - we spend a lot of time teaching pilots to operate and fight a helicopter by day and night, and in order to do that we need an aircraft of increased complexity, ruggedness and performance.
Then the decision had to be made on which helicopter type and which contractor to provide the aircraft and engineering support.
Now you will ask why the piston helis didn't get a look in, and it's mainly because no-one wanted them. At the time the only option was the R22 which had such a horrendous record in terms of training accidents (dynamic rollover, mast bumping, running out of power) that nobody, who knew what was involved in Military flying training, would have looked twice at them.
Just for once, in Military procurement, the bean counters didn't get their way; it would have been very easy to make a financial case for using R22s instead of Squirrels purely based on operating costs with no regard given to performance. One of the requirements of the desired aircraft was that it should be capable of flying at 120 kts which clearly ruled out the R22. Actually it should have said cruise at 120 and dash at 140 but someone missed that bit out and the DHFS Squirrels are torque limited to preserve airframe and engine life to the benefit of the contractor.
I don't know what the R44s top speed is but even if it was fast enough it is still a Robinson and as such is better suited to being gently bimbled round the sky rather than the hard life that the Squirrel (very successfully) endures as the workhorse of DHFS.
We don't spend that long teaching pilots to physically fly a helicopter, that is the easy bit and anyone who can drive a car can learn to fly a helicopter - we spend a lot of time teaching pilots to operate and fight a helicopter by day and night, and in order to do that we need an aircraft of increased complexity, ruggedness and performance.
Tightgit
and just to confuse you even more......
I would agree that patrolling can have very good results. We do patrol, here when the hours are available. All of our pilots, and most of our observers would happily spend as much time in the air as possible. (Bladder limits of course would apply, we're all getting on a bit now!). But with high population density and small geographic area being airborne when the job cracks off can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful result! For those with a large geographical area, being airborne but in the wrong place could be worse than being on the ground in a central location....
But we all seem to be agreed on the basics
If the CAA was made up of staff who had never been in the military or
The CAA wrote a different set of rules or
We were the 51st state of the USA
Then
We could have three times as many police helicopters flying over
the UK.
PS. some of the times we have been on patrol we have had no decent jobs at all!
I would agree that patrolling can have very good results. We do patrol, here when the hours are available. All of our pilots, and most of our observers would happily spend as much time in the air as possible. (Bladder limits of course would apply, we're all getting on a bit now!). But with high population density and small geographic area being airborne when the job cracks off can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful result! For those with a large geographical area, being airborne but in the wrong place could be worse than being on the ground in a central location....
But we all seem to be agreed on the basics
If the CAA was made up of staff who had never been in the military or
The CAA wrote a different set of rules or
We were the 51st state of the USA
Then
We could have three times as many police helicopters flying over
the UK.
PS. some of the times we have been on patrol we have had no decent jobs at all!
Charlie S charlie, I have flown an R22 and been in a crash in one (not my fault I might add) so I do feel qualified to slag it off when the opportunity arises. Quite a few military instructors have R22 experience because you need the piston time to instruct in civvy street - many mil pilots hold civvy licences as an insurance policy in the event of being posted somewhere awful and having to resign.
The speed requirement for a training aircraft is important as a mil pilot needs to learn to navigate and fly at low level (100') at 120 kts during training as most front-line aircraft fly at least that fast.
The training profiles vary greatly from sortie to sortie but the aircraft might go from spending a hour and a half manoeuvring at low level at high speed, to an hour of engine off landings, to an hour of USLs, to mountain flying, to NVG work etc.etc. I'm not saying an R44 couldn't hack these individual disciplines (apart from not having an NVG compatible cockpit) but could it keep doing it day after day and remain as serviceable as the Squirrel does.
Then when you need to detach for a long range nav, can you get 4 pax plus all their kit in a 44 without having to seriously compromise on fuel load?
As for the police issue, I am sure that every Chief Inspector would love to have helicopters airborne 24/7 as a visible deterrent to the bad boys, much as they would like lots of bobbies on the streets all the time. Our rising crime rates have a lot to do with the visibility, or lack of it, of the Police; if you think you can get away with something because no-one is watching you are more likely to try.
I don't think it is the fact that there are quite a few ex-mil guys in the CAA that makes them so restrictive, just because one wears a uniform it does not make you a blinkered automaton incapable of independent thought (unless you are in the US Army!!!).
The speed requirement for a training aircraft is important as a mil pilot needs to learn to navigate and fly at low level (100') at 120 kts during training as most front-line aircraft fly at least that fast.
The training profiles vary greatly from sortie to sortie but the aircraft might go from spending a hour and a half manoeuvring at low level at high speed, to an hour of engine off landings, to an hour of USLs, to mountain flying, to NVG work etc.etc. I'm not saying an R44 couldn't hack these individual disciplines (apart from not having an NVG compatible cockpit) but could it keep doing it day after day and remain as serviceable as the Squirrel does.
Then when you need to detach for a long range nav, can you get 4 pax plus all their kit in a 44 without having to seriously compromise on fuel load?
As for the police issue, I am sure that every Chief Inspector would love to have helicopters airborne 24/7 as a visible deterrent to the bad boys, much as they would like lots of bobbies on the streets all the time. Our rising crime rates have a lot to do with the visibility, or lack of it, of the Police; if you think you can get away with something because no-one is watching you are more likely to try.
I don't think it is the fact that there are quite a few ex-mil guys in the CAA that makes them so restrictive, just because one wears a uniform it does not make you a blinkered automaton incapable of independent thought (unless you are in the US Army!!!).
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
When you are on the ground and off duty I doubt you would feel that a visible police presence in your local area was other than a good thing when it comes to keeping the local bad lads in check.
That is my take on what Shawn is saying and I am with him.
When you are on duty you may be able to argue cost/effectiveness issues (which I am certainly not competent to talk about) but to suggest that a police chopper flying about while not on a specific shout does no good seems wrong to me.
Yonks ago I was involved in testing the airworthiness of some mods to a Police Islander. When flying on these tests we were several times asked to help (and were able to) just because we were airborne in the local area. Talking to the officers on board they doubted they would have been scrambled for the cases we helped on because of the response time that would have been involved.
JF
When you are on the ground and off duty I doubt you would feel that a visible police presence in your local area was other than a good thing when it comes to keeping the local bad lads in check.
That is my take on what Shawn is saying and I am with him.
When you are on duty you may be able to argue cost/effectiveness issues (which I am certainly not competent to talk about) but to suggest that a police chopper flying about while not on a specific shout does no good seems wrong to me.
Yonks ago I was involved in testing the airworthiness of some mods to a Police Islander. When flying on these tests we were several times asked to help (and were able to) just because we were airborne in the local area. Talking to the officers on board they doubted they would have been scrambled for the cases we helped on because of the response time that would have been involved.
JF
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab: Not wanting to go off piste, but I don't see how having an accident in an R22 means you feel qualified to slag it off in public.
Without you telling us further detail beyond "not my fault", how are we supposed to judge your opinion ?
I too have had an accident in an R22 - and I had plenty of hospital time to contemplate it. But in no way do I feel qualified to slag off the machine. 3,000 flying worldwide mainly in training.....less than 20 notified accidents a year.
57% of R22 accidents happen when an instructor is on board. Now that's worth slagging off.
Without you telling us further detail beyond "not my fault", how are we supposed to judge your opinion ?
I too have had an accident in an R22 - and I had plenty of hospital time to contemplate it. But in no way do I feel qualified to slag off the machine. 3,000 flying worldwide mainly in training.....less than 20 notified accidents a year.
57% of R22 accidents happen when an instructor is on board. Now that's worth slagging off.
Headsethair - I didn't mean that having a crash entitled me to be critical of the R22, in fact the low inertia rotor head saved us from being cartwheeled around a hilltop when it rolled over - as soon as the blades hit, the engine and rotor stopped dead.
Charlie was commenting on mil pilots dislike of the R22 and concerned that none of us had actaully been in one and were therfore basing our bigotry on hearsay; I have flown it (only about 20 hours) and found it to be an underpowered, scaled-down version of a real helicopter. It's only real defence is that it is cheap (for a helicopter) to run and operate.
Your statistic of 57% of R22 accidents happening when an instructor is on board only highlights the aircraft's unsuitability for the training role - when it bites, it bites hard and any instructor intervention is wasted effort as the R22 goes into self-destruct mode.
Charlie was commenting on mil pilots dislike of the R22 and concerned that none of us had actaully been in one and were therfore basing our bigotry on hearsay; I have flown it (only about 20 hours) and found it to be an underpowered, scaled-down version of a real helicopter. It's only real defence is that it is cheap (for a helicopter) to run and operate.
Your statistic of 57% of R22 accidents happening when an instructor is on board only highlights the aircraft's unsuitability for the training role - when it bites, it bites hard and any instructor intervention is wasted effort as the R22 goes into self-destruct mode.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, I have to agree with you. Having been a QHI on Gazelle and Scout for many years I flew the R22 over here in Canada to have it included on my Commercial license. I found the R22 to be cramped, under-powered, EOL characteristics of a flying chunk of concrete and the cyclic set-up absolutely ridiculous.
If I had the choice of a piston helicopter for training purposes.......the Bell 47 G4..........not as fast as the R22, but who needs speed in the training environment???
For operational use........twin engined turbines are the only way to go for total safety over built up areas.
If I had the choice of a piston helicopter for training purposes.......the Bell 47 G4..........not as fast as the R22, but who needs speed in the training environment???
For operational use........twin engined turbines are the only way to go for total safety over built up areas.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab: The world's best racing drivers always started in karting. They learn how to get the most from an underpowered machine with a compromised drivetrain and chassis.
It might be a good idea for all heli pilots to start in the same fashion. It could be argued that many heli accidents have their roots in "bad energy management" - be that the machine's energy or the energy of the wind. Learning to fly the R22 inside its envelope develops the skills of any helicopter pilot.
It was never designed or marketed as a training machine, but has obviously ended up as such. Personally. as I pay for all my flying, I cannot imagine a more cost-effective developer of my skills than the R22. It teaches you stuff you don't even feel in a more advanced machine.
Even now that I have moved on to the R44, I keep my training up on a 22. And every Instructor I've ever met has said that learning to fly the 22 makes you a better all-round pilot.
The best money I ever spent in flying was the instrument training course on a 22 - an immense challenge.
KennyR: Tens of thousands of EOLs have been practised in the 22 = most without incident. Get it right and you're a good pilot. And - there's no such thing as total safety over congested areas. Or anywhere else for that matter.
It might be a good idea for all heli pilots to start in the same fashion. It could be argued that many heli accidents have their roots in "bad energy management" - be that the machine's energy or the energy of the wind. Learning to fly the R22 inside its envelope develops the skills of any helicopter pilot.
It was never designed or marketed as a training machine, but has obviously ended up as such. Personally. as I pay for all my flying, I cannot imagine a more cost-effective developer of my skills than the R22. It teaches you stuff you don't even feel in a more advanced machine.
Even now that I have moved on to the R44, I keep my training up on a 22. And every Instructor I've ever met has said that learning to fly the 22 makes you a better all-round pilot.
The best money I ever spent in flying was the instrument training course on a 22 - an immense challenge.
KennyR: Tens of thousands of EOLs have been practised in the 22 = most without incident. Get it right and you're a good pilot. And - there's no such thing as total safety over congested areas. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! The stats don't back that up. A twin engine helicopter is not twice as safe as a single. However twin engines do mean you have approximately twice the chance of an engine failure.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
headsethair
Precisely. And then you have to factor in the chance of a common failure to both plus the time when one fails mechanically and takes out the other, to say nothing of the inherently more complex installation of a multi. The fixed wing world suffers the all same, plus additional asymmetric handling issues which I guess you guys are spared.
Precisely. And then you have to factor in the chance of a common failure to both plus the time when one fails mechanically and takes out the other, to say nothing of the inherently more complex installation of a multi. The fixed wing world suffers the all same, plus additional asymmetric handling issues which I guess you guys are spared.
John Farley:
Whether we (the public) like it or not, when bean countes get their teeth into public funds, the ONLY thing that counts is:
STATS.
Remaining airborne for 5+ hours picking up on peripheral jobs such as guns on roof tops, suspect vehicles, putting oof crims is doing the actual STATS sheet no good whatsoever.
What they want is RESULTS: prisoners/stolen vehicles recovered, missing persons found.
Everything outside of this specification will not and does not add up to 'best value' and consequently funding will not be released!!!
1 hour flying and 2 prisoners at the end of it is more efficient than 5 hours flying and perhaps 3 or 4 violent crimes being prevented (possibly/who knows).
Whether you like it or not, in the UK, ALL POLICE FORCES ARE RUN BY ACCOUNTANTS, not Chief Constables.
Other point:
Twins -alternatively don't worry about:
single engine chip lights
fire warnings on 1 engine
oil leaks on one engine
horses for courses
Whether we (the public) like it or not, when bean countes get their teeth into public funds, the ONLY thing that counts is:
STATS.
Remaining airborne for 5+ hours picking up on peripheral jobs such as guns on roof tops, suspect vehicles, putting oof crims is doing the actual STATS sheet no good whatsoever.
What they want is RESULTS: prisoners/stolen vehicles recovered, missing persons found.
Everything outside of this specification will not and does not add up to 'best value' and consequently funding will not be released!!!
1 hour flying and 2 prisoners at the end of it is more efficient than 5 hours flying and perhaps 3 or 4 violent crimes being prevented (possibly/who knows).
Whether you like it or not, in the UK, ALL POLICE FORCES ARE RUN BY ACCOUNTANTS, not Chief Constables.
Other point:
Twins -alternatively don't worry about:
single engine chip lights
fire warnings on 1 engine
oil leaks on one engine
horses for courses
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that it is cheaper for a student pilot to fail on fixed wing than rotary. 25 years ago the Army pilot trained on Bell 47 G4 for 60 hours prior to transitioning to the Gazelle (120 hours) and then further transition to the Lynx, Scout or Beaver.
There is nothing wrong with training in a piston helicopter, provided that the right one is selected. The benign handling of the 47 instills confidence in the student prior to converting to the greyhound of the fleet, the Gazelle.
Twins are more expensive to keep in the air 24/7 but I still firmly believe that they are safer than singles, especially piston singles.
Sure there will be incidents involving tail rotor failures, MRGB failures and the remote chance of a double engine failure, but the twin still has to be worth the extra expenditure.
Single engine failure in a twin at night over built up area = fly away................single engine failure in a single at night over built up area = Oh Sh*t, we're going down!!!!!!!!
There is nothing wrong with training in a piston helicopter, provided that the right one is selected. The benign handling of the 47 instills confidence in the student prior to converting to the greyhound of the fleet, the Gazelle.
Twins are more expensive to keep in the air 24/7 but I still firmly believe that they are safer than singles, especially piston singles.
Sure there will be incidents involving tail rotor failures, MRGB failures and the remote chance of a double engine failure, but the twin still has to be worth the extra expenditure.
Single engine failure in a twin at night over built up area = fly away................single engine failure in a single at night over built up area = Oh Sh*t, we're going down!!!!!!!!