I don't think that comparing fatal accident rates is a good way of looking at single vs. dual pilot operations.Posthumane wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:12 amExcept that statistically, two engines are not much safer than one. Twin engine piston aircraft have a similar fatal accident rate to single engine piston aircraft of the same class (i.e. faster, traveling singles), and two engine turbo-props have a similar fatal accident rate to single engine turbo-props of the same class. I don't think there's much data for comparing single engine cabin class jets since there's so few around.fish4life wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 10:32 am Think about it this way, a 172 only requires one engine yet 2 engines is safer. Why? well at a point the risk reward doesn't add up, at the end of the day safety costs money and the line usually gets drawn around the 9 passengers in the back. Then it becomes more essential to have the added layer of safety.
on a side note their is wayyyyy more movements of airliners every day than GA aircraft, yet GA aircraft have a much higher rate of casualty so keep in mind how safe things are right now.
Interestingly, this article talks of a study comparing single pilot and two-pilot ops in biz-jets. Same aircraft, only difference being the number of crew members. The sample size is low, but the fatal accident rate is comparable; close enough that they stated it is inconclusive.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -advantage
There are a lot of things that have to go wrong before people die. Issues such as altitude deviations and runway/taxiway incursions are much more common in single pilot operations - especially if operating high performance aircraft in congested areas. These issues, ranging all the way up to non-fatal accidents, would not be accounted for by simply examining the fatal accident rates.