John Gaquin writes:

Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.

I'd interpret any engine failure as a sign from above to land
immediately. I figure a twin might just let you reach a bit further
in search of an airfield, nothing more.

Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
apparently.

A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
off, right?

I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
likely you are to lose at least one).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.