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 incorrectly assumed automatically safer than singles in the 1960s—leading to lax training and lower insurance—to now being unfairly "demonized" as inherently more dangerous than high-performance singles.
*Flying* magazine and Dick Collins initially challenged the redundancy myth by highlighting higher fatal accident rates in twins due to inadequate engine-out training. They now advocate for a balanced view, arguing that properly trained and current twin pilots can operate these aircraft safely and benefit from capabilities that single-piston engines cannot provide, without facing disproportionate insurance and training penalties.

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.