I hear a lot of old school aviators say how twins are safer, because obviously if you lose one engine, you've got another. My instructor, a Master CFII who is 78 years old, swears by this. Younger pilots are prone to say that is from the day in which engines were less reliable, and singles today are just as safe.

I'm looking to get an airplane to do cross-country and over water flying (to the Caribbean from the U.S.) and he says especially for over-water flying, you definitely want a twin.

But obviously with twins comes twice the gas, twice the engine maintenance. Some people say twice the worry.

With the reliability of engines today (and I am well aware that engine outs on takeoff still kill people) what do you guys think regarding the single vs. twin safety factor?

Other notes: The other consideration I have is speed. Obviously a Baron will get you from Miami to Santo Domingo faster than an Archer. I've looked at everything from Barons to Bonanzas to Cessna 210's, Piper Dakotas (my personal favorite if speed were not a consideration), Seneca's. Any thoughts on particular aircraft for the job would be great, too. I have some money to spend, but the lower the better, and top end would be in the $250k range. But if there's a $70k airplane out there that would do the job reliably, safely and with good speed, I'm not looking to spend just so others ooh and ah at my plane. I'm looking for utility. Cargo would be wife, dog, golf clubs and her suitcase

Normally, I'd put my bet on a twin in terms of safety over a single any day.  Quite frankly, if you lose an engine on a single, your doing a forced landing.  If you lose that same engine over water, your ditching.  If you lose that engine at night or IMC, your praying.  Every pilot is trained to do forced landings, but you and I know that there are so many scenarios that could happen, and even a well-executed forced approach isn't going to guarantee survivability!  Having two engines reduces the risk by quite a lot.

Engines may be pretty reliable today, but stuff still happens.  I've sat in a few singles that are quite remarkably maintained but still suffers from the occasional snag.  I've seen fuel pump failures, to mixture control failures.  There are a multitude of things that could happen that might not be in your control either.  If comparing just singles vs twins, the more expensive twins are undoubtedly safer.  I personally wouldn't fly large bodies of water without a second engine if I can help it, no matter how reliable the engines are.

With all that said, I would feel probably a thousand times safer on a single if it were equipped with a ballistic recovery chute.  That way, you lose that engine (or a wing for that matter), you still have a chance of walking out a plane in one piece.  It'd probably be a lot cheaper in the long run vs. a twin as well.  If your flying over water and your carrying a life raft, you might actually have time to actually get out and use one    I'm not not sure how readily moddable certain aircraft are to having one of these things, but I really wish they were more standard issue. 

Yeah definetly if I was flying long distance with a lot of over water flying the definetly a twin other wise I prefer good old fashined single

As with any aircraft, the good pilot should of course know their machine and prepare for the worst.  Distractions happen, granted, but that's why pilots constantly train and improve their skills, whether it is formal training or even on a leisurely flight.  Aviate, navigate, communicate, with the first being the most important.  Even with distractions, the pilot shouldn't be losing control of their aircraft if they are on top of it or unless it is beyond their control. 

It's better to have more options than no options.  While not every twin can sustain level flight with an engine-out, it still gives you more options over water.  Ditching sucks. 

I agree about the mountain terrain part. 

I'm in the "extra engine(s) are only useful for long flights over water or extremely remote areas" camp.
Twins have always tended to be designed so that they rely on that extra engine for normal ops, to the point where they are basically in "limp home" mode if one of them quits or has to be shut down. The difference in service ceiling (the alt. at which the plane will climb no more than 100 fpm) on one engine, for example, is huge. And in low airspeed/high power situations, if one engine starts misbehaving, the aircraft will want to yaw towards the weak or dead engine and roll over.  Yes, some have counter-rotating engines to help with that, but that's unusual. and even in-line twins do poorly on one engine.

I'm surprised that an old pilot would claim twins were inherently safer... but then again, he probably knows how to handle a light twin in that most frightening scenario of all- loss of an engine or prop on takeoff. That's probably the most common fatal accident scenario for twins, due to failure to pitch over for best single-engine speed immediately after breaking ground, and/or failure to immediately identify the failing engine, apply opposite rudder, and feather the prop. And I mean immediately.

Coming in to land on one engine, the twin pilot has to again know exactly what to do and when to do it... every response to power and configuration changes will be radically different. It's more complicated than just gliding with no thrust at all... something most twins are not very good at (relatively speaking, they glide like bricks).

Also, due to the fact that the perceived safety of twins can cause pilots to cruise over areas where singles might not go, if a twin has to make an emergency arrival due to failure of one engine, it's going to be much more dicey than landing a single with no thrust. In the mountains, or on top of bad weather, for example, you wouldn't be much better off.

And yes, two engines means twice the likelihood of engine failure, statistically speaking.
There are some twins, especially twin jets, that have enough "oomph" in each engine to do quite well in the dreaded "single-engine climbout" scenario, but again, they have very low single-engine service ceilings, and they glide poorly.

As for parachutes, as long as the airplane will still at least glide and I can see where I'm going, I'm going to keep flying. Even into obstacles or rough terrain. Typical descent rates for aircraft under BRS canopies is about 400 fpm (once stabilized), and you have absolutely no control over where you will go. Most light singles can be flown at a lower sink rate with no power, and even a twin on one engine will do better than that. and both types can be steered without power.
  Most BRS deployments have been successful in avoiding injury or death, but the same can be said of all forced landings, parachute or no. And in some cases, the deployment itself created the fatal condition (like the Cirrus that was dragged over a series of mountain peaks in high winds). To me, the only scenarios where it would be truly necessary would be in case of serious structural damage, or loss of control in IMC without even needle, ball and airspeed to help me fly the plane.

DaveSims wrote on Jan 27^th, 2012 at 2:49pm:


I've always thought the whole idea of BRS was to save your life in the event of loss of control (mishandling leading to a stall/spin scenario), or maybe an engine failure over inhospitable terrain or in IMC, rather than a normal engine failure scenario.

As for the single/twin/three/four argument, the more the merrier! As long as you've been properly trained, plan your flying sensibly and within the capabilities of your aircraft, with two engines, at least you can buy some time to deal with a problem, as opposed to a failure of a single, where in most cases (unless it was a rectifiable non mechanical issue) you're committed to landing very quickly by gravity!