Wrong Worry in Twins Versus Singles

J. Mac McClellan

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

Verified

ColumnArt_Web

Key Takeaways:

The perception of piston twin safety has swung from being wrongly considered automatically safer than singles to being unfairly demonized as inherently riskier.
*Flying* magazine, through Dick Collins, initially challenged the misconception of automatic twin safety by exposing higher fatal accident rates post-engine failure, particularly due to flawed training practices like low-altitude VMC demonstrations.
Despite past improvements in training, the author argues that insurance companies and many pilots now mistakenly view singles as inherently safer, penalizing twins with higher premiums and stricter requirements, even though overall risk profiles for twins and high-performance singles are comparable.
The article advocates for a balanced understanding, asserting that piston twins are safe, appropriate, and desirable aircraft for pilots committed to rigorous training, and that their current negative perception stems from a gross misunderstanding of their capabilities.

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.