Am I missing something here? In reading the debate about single-engine instrument flight rules (SEIFR) operations, I find a growing sense of disbelief.
The probability statistics of failure for a modern turbine engine is hardly the issue.
On a black night, in bad weather, on a twin when one engine fails there is a 100% probability of having power remaining from the other engine.
In a single-engined aircraft, there is a 0% probability. The aircraft is going down, instrument flight rules, complete with passengers, beginning right now.
Even if some fantastically complicated set of conditions is imposed, eg within gliding distance of an alternate at all times, not over remote terrain or water, not over built-up areas, etc, I can see no justification for gambling with fare paying passengers in this way.
Whether the pilot feels lucky tonight should never be on a minimum equipment list.
Where next? The Boeing 7E7 with only one engine because the stats are good?
Peter Johnson Gloucester, UK
Source: Flight International
