As I said earlier - I am not advocating it as the only way to do business but highlighting it as an alternative which, if you do do subsequently lose the second engine, does not leave you unprepared or poorly positioned for the EOL.

Fareast - I understand your position entirely re pax but, in the unhappy event of a twin on one engine losing the second one on finals, I would much prefer to cause the pax some unease than smash them all into the undershoot - I can see the headline now.

It is a fact that statistically you are very unlikely to lose one engine, let alone 2 and the procedures employed and recommended reflect this. But in a situation (as originally detailed on this thread re S61) if you don't know why the first engine has failed and you have any suspicion that there may be collateral damage to the second (or maintenance issues or a host of other reasons) then you would not be exercising your airmanship and captaincy fully if you did not at least consider placing yourself in a flight regime that allowed a safe (if scary) outcome should the second one let go.

As I said before - not being able to do autos because you don't practice them is not an excuse or defence in this case - this is a major safety issue, you should have mandated GH training to ensure your flying skills are up to the level that your fare-paying pax expect them to be.

...in this case captaincy might also suggest, flight conditions permitting, a (powered) landing anywhere when first coasting in, rather than waiting several minutes for an airfield?