True for most of the safety stats.

I prefer to rely on market data and insurance quotes.

My friend's wife is nearly perfect:

"You're flying it so you pick the plane but I want to have X, Y, and Z..."

So he was out looking at a normally aspirated Baron 58's, possibly 55's. Then she had a transient pilot show her a 414A while he was pre-flighting the Arrow. Now she really likes the pressurized idea now since they have two young kids. He told her she'd probably choke over the insurance costs alone (plus the added MX costs) since he might have 20 multi (total, not in type) by the time he finishes his MEL. A 150 hour (so about 75 PIC) IFR pilot hopping into a pressurized twin with basically a fresh multi ticket?!?! What's that, 10k to start plus the sim training and mentor pilot costs on a good day? She still thinks they should seriously look at it, because it would make the trips they want to take so much more comfortable for everyone. Round and round they go...

Don't get me wrong, he likes the idea of a pressurized twin himself, he just doesn't think that it's the best way to go right now. He'd rather spend less on the insurance and more on the flight time for trips.

Here's to spouses

No. The non events are not tracked in any data.

I assume she flew in your MU2 when you had it, so that sets a particular standard of airplane travel.

Exactly, because it's a non event, so the safety record would improve by these not being reported.

Different wife

I sold it during the divorce. Easier to split the money than the plane. I didn't have the mission for it after we broke up.

The Mooney was great when I was single. Women

The point is that it is an event, a significant one: an engine failure.

The number of complete engine failures that result in damage and/or fatalities is substantially higher in single engined airplanes than in twins because in many cases the twin can fly safely to an airport landing whereas the single cannot. If you looked at every engine failure across both categories, and compared the outcomes, I (and others) believe that the twin would have a much better safety record than the single.

I understand perfectly, and that's what the argument has been about. What you describe about how accident records are tallied is what I've heard, and the same sources say that those records indicate that twins are essentially the same as singles safety-wise.

My (and others') point is that real life differs in the way "safety" is measured. In reality, if you lose an engine, you are much safer in the twin although your safe arrival won't show up in any statistics.

The problem that people are struggling with is the argument put forth by those quoting the IMHO skewed statistics that say that twins are no safer than singles.

What is being said is that, per 100k hours, they have essentially the same fatality rate.

Twins have less accidents because many are flown safely back on one. But when they have an accident, it's more often fatal.

Thanks Nate, that makes sense. Fewer accidents is overall "safer", but if you wreck a twin it's likely to be ugly, so survivability isn't so good.

I wouldn't buy a Diamond for reasons Jason mentioned, you'll have a unicorn of a plane, and that's not ideal when its time to sell it.

Are twins safer than a single engine? The only person who can answer that is, you. How confident you are in your abilities? Are you committed to training often? Do twins give you more options in the event of an emergency? Yes! I like seeing both motors turning while flying straight and level 9,000 feet over the Everglades. I've got time on my side, altitude to burn, and airspeed can be easily regained. With that said, every take off, especially at smaller strips, requires a gut check.

Food for thought...if you lose an engine at 300 feet with no runway left, a parachute probably won't save your bacon either.

The way I see your dilemma:

-Want to save a bunch of money? Keep the Mooney, buy a parachute for your wife. If the engine quits, shove her out the door while screaming "if only I'd listened to you! You were right all along"
-want to not spend as much money initially, haul a hockey team, get one of those sweet onboard radars, go as fast or marginally faster than your Mooney, and at twice the fuel burn/engine maintenance? Buy a twin
-Want to spend a crap load of money with all the benefits while flying high in comfort? buy a pressurized twin
-Want to spend a crap load of money, go as fast or slightly faster than your Mooney, and have a get out of jail free card above 1000 agl (maybe lower...don't flame me Cirrus guys)? Buy a Cirrus
-Want to spend a crap load of money, have a unicorn of a twin, and something that might sit on the market for a while to sell? Buy a Diamond
-Want to join a group of other people who love spending your money for you? Join
Beechtalk.

Reading your earlier posts, it sounds like if you want your wife to enjoy and accompany you while flying...the Cirrus is the clear winner.

FWIW - I have a C310R. The main motivation for me to move up to a twin was payload and more weather capabilities...but mostly because I wanted one, I wanted the challenge, I wanted to find a way to support my A&Ps children's education, and I think they are cool. Safety wasn't the driving reason. Having a second engine can be either a blessing or a curse.

Edit: Missed the fact that you owned a MU2, you know all this stuff already. In that case do what makes the Mrs happy.

Your job is to educate her on what is really safe, and what is not. Which plane do you want to fly?
Safety of flight is most closely tied to the pilot, not the plane. There have been plenty of fatal Cirrus crashes, and plenty of twin crashes. Buying those planes will not make you safer, in and of themselves.
Best thing is to decide what you really want or need to fly, and then spend money and time training and being proficient in that plane, and make safe judgements on weather etc. And explaining your reasoning to her, of what makes sense for your mission, and budget.

For the amount of money you are talking about you could easily buy a 58P and have enough money left over to pay for fuel for several years. Forget about statistics. You and your wife will feel safer in a twin, guaranteed. As far as I am concerned that is what it is all about, feeling comfortable in whatever you are flying.

If the records indicate the same amount of people are getting killed in twins as they are singles then it doesn't matter if some twin engine failures aren't getting reported. The end result is still that the same number of people are getting killed in twins than singles.

All you are really saying is that twins are having engine failures that aren't getting reported at a much higher rate than singles. That doesn't make me want to buy a twin. I'd rather fly an airplane with fewer points of failure.

You can't assume every time a prop twin has a failure it will land safely. If that were the case, fewer people would be dying in prop twins.

You also can't lump twin jet stats in with propeller twins stats.

You also have to remove all the training flights (Cessna 172 low altitude in the pattern) from the single engine stats as those make up 80% of the SE accidents.

If you could compare high performance piston singles to high performance piston twins I guarantee the stats would should significant advantage to the piston single.