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 incorrectly assumed to be inherently safer than singles, leading to inadequate training and lower insurance premiums.
*Flying* magazine's Dick Collins challenged this, revealing twins had more fatal accidents post-engine failure, prompting improved training and a brief period of accurate understanding.
However, the perception has since swung too far; twins are now unfairly demonized as riskier than singles, resulting in disproportionately high insurance costs despite overall risks being comparable to high-performance singles for proficient pilots.
The article advocates for piston twins as desirable and safe aircraft for pilots committed to proper training, arguing that their current penalization by the industry is based on a 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.