Wrong Worry in Twins Versus Singles

J. Mac McClellan

Saturday, February 01, 2003 at 10:00 AM ET

Verified

ColumnArt_Web

Key Takeaways:

Initially, piston twins were wrongly considered inherently safer than singles, but *Flying* magazine's Dick Collins revealed that twins had higher fatal accident rates after engine failure, partly due to flawed training practices.
Collins' advocacy eventually led to improved twin training and a period where the aviation community understood that twin safety depended on pilot skill and current engine-failure procedures.
Currently, the pendulum has swung too far; insurance companies and most pilots now incorrectly assume singles are safer, imposing excessive premiums and training demands on twin pilots.
The article argues that piston twins are safe and desirable aircraft for well-trained pilots, and their current "demonization" is based on a misunderstanding of their capabilities and comparative risk with high-performance singles.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Piston twins are demonized by insurance companies and most general aviation pilots, and Flying magazine is responsible for the situation. Well, we are to blame for calling attention to the potential safety problems with twins, but our information has been misunderstood and certainly misapplied by many involved in general aviation. We have it right, and the insurance companies and most pilots have it wrong.

Dick Collins gets the credit for beginning and sustaining our crusade to inform pilots about the safety aspects of piston twins versus singles. Dick started his work on getting the facts out in the 1960s when the situation was reversed and commonly held attitudes about twins were wrong, but just the opposite of now. Back then the entire industry just knew that a piston twin was absolutely and automatically safer than a single.