Except that it’s inaccurate/highly exaggerated.
I posted about the same number of advantages for singles and twins, and many of the twin advantages are strongly compelling (like pressurisation, FIKI, ability to fly over weather or high terrain, etc). It's hard to see that as an attack, unless you want us to believe that twins are 100% advantage and 0% disadvantage compared to singles, and any other suggestion is sacrilege.
Statistically, there's no safety advantage for a twin over a single — we can all agree on that if we have basic numeracy skills — but that's partly because there are lots of thing many twins can do that most singles simply can't (or at least, usually shouldn't), like overflying wide stretches of water, flying in light icing conditions, or flying IFR over the Rockies, all of which are riskier even with two engines, but.
Those extra mission options come at a huge jump in operating cost and pilot-proficiency demands, but if they're critical/important to you — and you have the necessary financial resources — then a twin will clearly be the best choice. You won't find many pilots in the forum disputing that.
But we can drop the old pilot's tale that twins have a safety advantage over singles, because 70+ years of fatal-accident stats don't bear that out. The reality isn't that twins are safer per se, but that many twins let you do certain types of flying that are too dangerous to attempt in most singles (and thus, singles simply tend to avoid). Flying over Upstate NY at 8,000 ft between SC layers is at least as safe in a single as it is in a twin.
But flying across the middle of Lake Superior, or trying to top out a winter blizzard along the route are things most of us simply can't or won't attenpt in a single — they don't show up in the accident stats because the single pilot takes a long detour, or books a hotel room and flies the next day, while the twin pilot has more options.
).
