>>27671693Dude, just, no.
I've been aircrew for 8,500+ on twin engine aircraft and have suffered two engine failures, in both cases the remaining engine continued to get us back to a safe aerodrome. The business I work for, in the same period, has flown about 180,000 hours, and in that time had three other engine failures, and equally, they've all made it back -in one of mine and one of the others, involving two hours over water on the remaining engine. All of those were due to component failures incidentally.
a) The main cause of engine malfunction is fuel starvation.
b) When one engine fails, unless the cause is insufficient fuel, engine mismanagement, or bad fuel, chances are the other will not, in fact fail. The cases where both engines go on to have mechanical failures due to component failures, etc, are so rare as to be held up as major cases, even if the outcome isn't big - there was a case in Australia where I think about 8 people died because a light twin had two engines fail over water within a period of minutes because of a company policy leading to mishandling the engines - running the mixture too lean - leading to the engines failing. 8 people doesn't seem like a big accident, but it's one of the ones people point to as an example of a dual engine failure.
c) There's an old adage in lighter aircraft that says in a twin-engined plane, the second engine is to get you to the crash site - but that's based on the fact that flying asymmetric can be difficult and if not properly trained and current, it is easy to crash the aircraft as many poor souls have discovered. It's not a second engine failing, it's crashing it on the remaining one.
As another poster pointed out, with the exception of general aviation light twins, most modern twin engine aircraft have bucket loads of reserve performance on one engine.
