Emergency landing today Troutdale, OR

[gatt]

http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6018883

Bummer, but he's alive. He'd just purchased the plane this morning, coming
to Troutdale (probably for fuel) and had to make an emergency landing in a
suburb about a mile or so from the runway. To the west is Blue Lake
(shallow) and to the east toward the airport is a bunch of fields but the
terrain is broken and being developed. A local pilot would probably know
where to put it down off the street, but this guy did alright.

This is about a mile from my house. I can tell if it's a good flying day by
the amount of planes flying overhead. Rwy 07 faces straight into mouth of
the Columbia River Gorge so he might have found himself facing a sudden
20mph gusting headwind turning final.

[BT]

looks like an RV (Van's Aircraft)
any reports why the engine quit?

BT

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6018883
>
> Bummer, but he's alive. He'd just purchased the plane this morning,
> coming to Troutdale (probably for fuel) and had to make an emergency
> landing in a suburb about a mile or so from the runway. To the west is
> Blue Lake (shallow) and to the east toward the airport is a bunch of
> fields but the terrain is broken and being developed. A local pilot would
> probably know where to put it down off the street, but this guy did
> alright.
>
> This is about a mile from my house. I can tell if it's a good flying day
> by the amount of planes flying overhead. Rwy 07 faces straight into mouth
> of the Columbia River Gorge so he might have found himself facing a sudden
> 20mph gusting headwind turning final.
>
>

[Kyle Boatright]

It was a "rocket", which is an RV derivative with an 0-540.

I know the pilot, and am glad he's OK.

I'm sure the story will come out, but nothing yet...

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> looks like an RV (Van's Aircraft)
> any reports why the engine quit?
>
> BT
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6018883
>>
>> Bummer, but he's alive. He'd just purchased the plane this morning,
>> coming to Troutdale (probably for fuel) and had to make an emergency
>> landing in a suburb about a mile or so from the runway. To the west is
>> Blue Lake (shallow) and to the east toward the airport is a bunch of
>> fields but the terrain is broken and being developed. A local pilot
>> would probably know where to put it down off the street, but this guy did
>> alright.
>>
>> This is about a mile from my house. I can tell if it's a good flying day
>> by the amount of planes flying overhead. Rwy 07 faces straight into
>> mouth of the Columbia River Gorge so he might have found himself facing a
>> sudden 20mph gusting headwind turning final.
>>
>>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6018883
>
> Bummer, but he's alive. He'd just purchased the plane this morning, coming
> to Troutdale (probably for fuel) and had to make an emergency landing in a
> suburb about a mile or so from the runway. To the west is Blue Lake
> (shallow) and to the east toward the airport is a bunch of fields but the
> terrain is broken and being developed. A local pilot would probably know
> where to put it down off the street, but this guy did alright.
>
> This is about a mile from my house. I can tell if it's a good flying day by
> the amount of planes flying overhead. Rwy 07 faces straight into mouth of
> the Columbia River Gorge so he might have found himself facing a sudden
> 20mph gusting headwind turning final.

This is a new aircraft and the engine fails on the first flight?
Something is not right.

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

[[email protected]]

>
> This is a new aircraft and the engine fails on the first flight?

A sputtering engine can be anything but a failing engine.

> Something is not right.

No kidding.

-Kees.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A sputtering engine can be anything but a failing engine.

If it caused a crash, the distinction may be academic.

Was this really a _new_ airplane, or just a newly used airplane?

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 11:26 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > A sputtering engine can be anything but a failing engine.
>
> If it caused a crash, the distinction may be academic.

It didn't cause a crash.


> Was this really a _new_ airplane, or just a newly used airplane?

Don't know, is it relevant?

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Don't know, is it relevant?

Yes. If I had bought a plane brand-new and it had engine trouble on
the first flight, I'd have the aircraft dumped on the doorstep of the
CEO of the manufacturer. There's no excuse for that.

In a used plane, the expectations are different.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Don't know, is it relevant?
>
> Yes. If I had bought a plane brand-new and it had engine trouble on
> the first flight, I'd have the aircraft dumped on the doorstep of the
> CEO of the manufacturer. There's no excuse for that.
>
> In a used plane, the expectations are different.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

What makes you think that engine trouble was the cause of this
incident?

-Kees

[Anno v. Heimburg]

wrote:
> What makes you think that engine trouble was the cause of this
> incident?

I cannot speak for where MX has got it from, but the article linked in the
OP contains words to that effect.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 1:51 pm, "Anno v. Heimburg" >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > What makes you think that engine trouble was the cause of this
> > incident?
>
> I cannot speak for where MX has got it from, but the article linked in the
> OP contains words to that effect.

True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
"sputtering engine".
That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.
I know as much as MX about the real cause, and that is absolutely
nothing.
The difference is that I know that I know nothing about it and MX
doesn't.

Regards,
Kees.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Anthony is not a pilot, and wouldn't be expected to know that an RV is a
homebuilt.

It does sound somewhat reminiscent of the John Denver crash.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6018883
>
> Bummer, but he's alive. He'd just purchased the plane this morning,
> coming to Troutdale (probably for fuel) and had to make an emergency
> landing in a suburb about a mile or so from the runway. To the west
> is Blue Lake (shallow) and to the east toward the airport is a bunch
> of fields but the terrain is broken and being developed. A local
> pilot would probably know where to put it down off the street, but
> this guy did alright.
> This is about a mile from my house. I can tell if it's a good flying
> day by the amount of planes flying overhead. Rwy 07 faces straight
> into mouth of the Columbia River Gorge so he might have found himself
> facing a sudden 20mph gusting headwind turning final.

gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not saying
the engine stalled.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Don't know, is it relevant?
>
> Yes. If I had bought a plane brand-new and it had engine trouble on
> the first flight, I'd have the aircraft dumped on the doorstep of the
> CEO of the manufacturer. There's no excuse for that.
>
> In a used plane, the expectations are different.

This aircraft was a "homebuilt" though probably not the home of the current
owner.

[Peter R.]

On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

> gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not saying
> the engine stalled.

But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>> gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not
>> saying the engine stalled.
>
> But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)

Peter, you know we have no choice but hunt you down and kill you now, right?
;)

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

The engine may have quit, but there are a lot of reasons for this,
especially things like running out of gas, or not generally knowing the fuel
systems. It wouldn't necessarily need to have been a problem intrinsically
with the engine itself.

Since the plane was seemingly intact, the NTSB investigation should provide
some meaningful information.



"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:21:39 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>This is a new aircraft and the engine fails on the first flight?
>Something is not right.

Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A Harmon
Rocket, I believe.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What makes you think that engine trouble was the cause of this
> incident?

A sputtering engine is not likely to be a healthy engine. Unless the
pilot did something stupid, of course (or failed to do something
smart).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A Harmon
> Rocket, I believe.

Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
owes him something.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A
>> Harmon Rocket, I believe.
>
> Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
> trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
> owes him something.

You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the aircraft
and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A Harmon
>> Rocket, I believe.
>
> Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
> trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
> owes him something.



You're in so far over your head and you don't even know it.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> This is a new aircraft and the engine fails on the first flight?
> Something is not right.

The aircraft was built in 1997. The reporter was wrong to call it a brand-
new plane. It was recently purchased by the latest owner.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the aircraft
> and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.

Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem. GA
aircraft are terribly prone to this, unfortunately.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> The aircraft was built in 1997. The reporter was wrong to call it a brand-
> new plane. It was recently purchased by the latest owner.

Ah. That makes much more sense.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem.

LOL.
Reminds me of those bowling towels with the 10 most frequently used
excuses why you didn't get a strike. They should make one with the 10
most frequent reasons why a piston engine starts sputtering, many
originating elsewhere.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> The engine may have quit, but there are a lot of reasons for this,
> especially things like running out of gas, or not generally knowing the
> fuel systems. It wouldn't necessarily need to have been a problem
> intrinsically with the engine itself.
>
> Since the plane was seemingly intact, the NTSB investigation should
> provide some meaningful information.

It is very rare for two experimental, even of like makes/models, to have
identical systems, so the NTSB doesn't go to great lengths to investigate
experimental/homebuilt accidents unless there was a fatality. It isn't like
there are a thousand identical aircraft out there with the same undiscovered
problem lurking around just waiting to bite the owner.

The new owner of this aircraft is a fellow named Rick Gray. Presumably he
understands the systems on these aircraft, since he built an Oshkosh award
winning RV-6 some years back.

KB

[BT]

A sputtering engine could be one about to run out of fuel..
in that case.. it is not the engines fault
it could be running out of fuel because the fuel tanks are full but either a
filter is blocked
or the fuel tank vent is blocked causing the tank to create a vacum and not
allow full flow into the fuel line

many many things.. and it's not the engine.. and maybe
not the pilots fault

BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> What makes you think that engine trouble was the cause of this
>> incident?
>
> A sputtering engine is not likely to be a healthy engine. Unless the
> pilot did something stupid, of course (or failed to do something
> smart).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

spoken from someone who only flies simulators..

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the
>> aircraft
>> and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.
>
> Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem. GA
> aircraft are terribly prone to this, unfortunately.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

BT wrote:
> spoken from someone who only flies simulators..
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the
>>> aircraft
>>> and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.
>> Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem. GA
>> aircraft are terribly prone to this, unfortunately.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
When he has a sputtering engine it followed by a BSOD

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:01:24 -0800, Viperdoc wrote
(in article >):

> Anthony is not a pilot, and wouldn't be expected to know that an RV is a
> homebuilt.
>
> It does sound somewhat reminiscent of the John Denver crash.
>
>

Not only is he not a pilot, he appears to suffer from a brain injury similar
to autism. He is incapable of admitting that he is wrong on anything, will
probably never fly an airplane even with an instructor, and has difficulty
separating reality from fiction. Over on the student news group he actually
claimed that you could use a radio controlled model truck to learn to drive a
real one.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:21:03 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A Harmon
>> Rocket, I believe.
>
>Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
>trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
>owes him something.

"Newly purchased," not "newly built." The airplane is registered as a 1997
model.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:01:56 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the aircraft
>> and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.
>
>Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem.

And all causes of death are ultimately heart failure. Even perfect engines will
sputter if the operator runs out of gas, or the fuel dealer puts contaminated
fuel in the tanks. In the 2002-2004 timeframe, about 10% of Cessna 172
accidents were due to the aircraft running out of gas. That *gives* the engine
problems, but it isn't an engine problem.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tony Cox]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message news:
...
>
> Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem. GA
> aircraft are terribly prone to this, unfortunately.

Actually, the reliability of a properly maintained GA piston
engine is very high. The MTBF is of the order of 10**5 hours,
or to put it another way, were you to fly 8 hours/day for your
entire working life, you might not experience even one failure!

Statistically, and without any other information whatever,
a "sputtering engine" is far more likely to be caused by a fuel
problem -- mismanagement or contamination -- than an engine
problem.

Where did you get the impression that GA aircraft were
"terribly prone" to engine problems?

[[email protected]]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:
> Statistically, and without any other information whatever,
> a "sputtering engine" is far more likely to be caused by a fuel
> problem -- mismanagement or contamination -- than an engine
> problem.

The failure of *other* parts can do the engine in, too ... in my case
the oil cooler split and dumped the oil. The engine itself was running
great...till it ran out of oil.

[Newps]

Tony Cox wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message news:
> ...
>> Usually, when an engine starts sputtering, it's an engine problem. GA
>> aircraft are terribly prone to this, unfortunately.
>

>
> Where did you get the impression that GA aircraft were
> "terribly prone" to engine problems?




That's called throwing a bomb. The only purpose he serves.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > The aircraft was built in 1997. The reporter was wrong to call it a brand-
> > new plane. It was recently purchased by the latest owner.
>
> Ah. That makes much more sense.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It looks like you know more than I do.
In what way does this make more sence?

-Kees.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Not only is he not a pilot, he appears to suffer from a brain injury similar
> to autism.

Autism is not a brain injury.

If one must be a licensed pilot discuss on aviation, then logically
one must be a licensed neurologist to discuss brain injuries, and a
licensed psychologist to discuss autism. Be careful what you wish
for, and if you wish to remain credible, it's important to practice
what you preach.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Tony Cox writes:

> Actually, the reliability of a properly maintained GA piston
> engine is very high.

Then many GA engines must be very poorly maintained, because engine
problems figure prominently in GA accidents.

> Where did you get the impression that GA aircraft were
> "terribly prone" to engine problems?

From accident reports. When I compare GA reports to commercial
airliner reports, the prominence of engine problems as a contributing
factor in accidents is difficult to ignore.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It looks like you know more than I do.
> In what way does this make more sence?

A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
maintenance.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 9:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > It looks like you know more than I do.
> > In what way does this make more sence?
>
> A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
> it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
> should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
> maintenance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Still doesn't make sence to me.
Used aircraft can have a brand new engine.

-Kees

[Anno v. Heimburg]

wrote:
> True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
> "sputtering engine".
> That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.
> Kees.

Quote the article "He was on his way home to Ohio when his engine began to
sputter and went out."

They are not saying "the engine failed" in exactly those words, but I am
hard-pressed to interpret that sentence in any other way.

Anno.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Used aircraft can have a brand new engine.

True, but that is hardly the default case.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It looks like you know more than I do.
>> In what way does this make more sence?
>
> A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
> it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
> should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
> maintenance.

I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
than average 172.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
> than average 172.

So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
sure sounded like an engine problem.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 3:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better cared for
> > than average 172.
>
> So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
> sure sounded like an engine problem.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

No, it did not sound as an engine problem.
It did sound as a sputtering engine, and that sir is something
completely different.
You are not a pilot, fine with me.
You only fly sims, also fine with me.
But not being able to read and understand a simple news article,
Hmmmm???
Didn't you teach English? Hmm Hmm.

-Kees

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Anno v. Heimburg > posted:

> wrote:
>> True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
>> "sputtering engine".
>> That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.
>> Kees.
>
> Quote the article "He was on his way home to Ohio when his engine
> began to sputter and went out."
>
> They are not saying "the engine failed" in exactly those words, but I
> am hard-pressed to interpret that sentence in any other way.
>
I would expect the same observation if the plane ran out of fuel.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better
>> cared for than average 172.
>
> So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
> sure sounded like an engine problem.

I have no idea. As post by myself and several others it could be Fuel, Pilot
or Engine. That is assuming that the very short news piece we read is even
close to what really happened.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:48:31 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>From accident reports. When I compare GA reports to commercial
>airliner reports, the prominence of engine problems as a contributing
>factor in accidents is difficult to ignore.

Number of engines enters into it, too. When the vast majority of GA aircraft
have an engine failure, they're going down. Airliners have more than one engine
(by regulation) and mere engine failure only rarely results in an accident.
Thus, even if the powerplant reliability rates were the same, airliners would
have lower accident rates.

The other factor is that turbine powerplants are more reliable than recips.
Compare airline accident rates in the 50s vs. today. You don't have airliners
ditching because of a problem with one of their powerplants.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

> >> Newly purchased homebuilt that was constructed by someone else. A
> >> Harmon Rocket, I believe.
> >
> > Still, the same principles apply: A new aircraft shouldn't have engine
> > trouble. If the pilot paid to have it constructed, the constructor
> > owes him something.
>
> You are making assuptions again that it was some problem with the aircraft
> and not the operator or a third party like a fuel dealer.
>
>
Picky Picky!

That sort of thing may not be fully modelled in MSFS...

Peter ;-)))

[Tony Cox]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tony Cox writes:
>
> > Where did you get the impression that GA aircraft were
> > "terribly prone" to engine problems?
>
> From accident reports.

Which accident reports might these be? Why don't you
give a link to what it is that has you so frightened and no
doubt some kind soul will patiently explain to you why
your interpretation is in error.

What you naively think of as an "engine problem" is more
likely to be pilot error (fuel exhaustion, improper application
of carburetor heat, inadequate preflight), or fuel contamination.
A simple review of the NTSB monthly reports ought to
clue you in that a true "engine problem" is a very rare
event.

[The Visitor]

Tony Cox wrote:


> Actually, the reliability of a properly maintained GA piston
> engine is very high. The MTBF is of the order of 10**5 hours,


Hmmm, and I buy lottery tickets
with odds over 14,000,000 to 1,
thinking, "I might win."

[BDS[_2_]]

> > > Where did you get the impression that GA aircraft were
> > > "terribly prone" to engine problems?
> >
> > From accident reports.

Actual, unassisted mechanical failures are at the bottom of the list of
causes for accidents, unless you consider things like running out of fuel an
engine problem.

Continued VFR, flying in hazardous weather (thunderstorms), icing, etc., are
at the top.

BDS

[WestCDA]

Or the absence of air or igition - which are still not an 'engine problem'.
For all that is known at this point there could have a raccoon living in the
air intake, or bad wiring on an aftermarket ignition. Probability is more
likely with fuel, but a 'sputtering' engine could have been a lot of things.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> I could pretty much guarantee that the average RV is much better
>>> cared for than average 172.
>>
>> So what do you think really happened? The description in the news
>> sure sounded like an engine problem.
>
> I have no idea. As post by myself and several others it could be Fuel,
> Pilot or Engine. That is assuming that the very short news piece we read
> is even close to what really happened.
>

[gatt]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> looks like an RV (Van's Aircraft)
> any reports why the engine quit?

None yet. On the news all he said was that it had been sputtering and he
thought he had a better chance of making Troutdale (better emergency
facilities too) then turning back, and that it sputtered out again and died
on approach.

I know the neighborhood, though; one of those new ones with few straight
roads but fortunately the street was pretty wide. Nobody hurt and nothing
but the airplane and a small tree damaged.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> True, but the article only mentioned "mechanical problems" and a
> "sputtering engine".

> That can mean anything and not just a failing engine.

The engine sputtered not long after he left the original airport so he aimed
for Troutdale and hoped he'd make it. (They're only a few minutes apart,
but Sandy is higher elevation and not as well-maintained.)

He said on the news last night that the engine stuttered and then quit as he
was coming into the pattern. Said as sure as he was standing there, God
told him where and how to land. By the look on his face you could tell he
meant it.


-c

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not
> saying the engine stalled.

Good point. They didn't! The local media is treating him like a hero. No
word from the neighborhood association yet, but I imagine it's a matter of
hours before they express outrage at the gross irresponsibility of that old
airport operating next to their brand new housing development.

-c

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It looks like you know more than I do.
>> In what way does this make more sence?
>
> A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
> it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
> should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
> maintenance.



The statistics do not beat that out.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Then many GA engines must be very poorly maintained, because engine
> problems figure prominently in GA accidents.

One does not follow from the other.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> He said on the news last night that the engine stuttered and then quit as he
> was coming into the pattern. Said as sure as he was standing there, God
> told him where and how to land. By the look on his face you could tell he
> meant it.

Perhaps God will be able to speak to the NTSB and explain exactly what
happened to that engine.

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

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Good point. They didn't! The local media is treating him like a hero.

Well, he followed God's instructions for his approach and landing,
didn't he?

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

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> He said on the news last night that the engine stuttered and then quit as
> he
> was coming into the pattern. Said as sure as he was standing there, God
> told him where and how to land. By the look on his face you could tell he
> meant it.

Perhaps God will be able to speak to me and explain why I'm such an asshole

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

[mad8]

On Feb 2, 3:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A new engine
> should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
> maintenance.

disagree.
the analogy is when you buy a car from the dealership, it comes with a
warranty. specifically because it is uncertain whether there were any
problems in manufacture. (and because it helps sell cars). why do you
think hyundai offers 100k of bumper to bumper (i'll give you a hint,
it's not at all because they expect you to never need it)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Somebody but not Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Perhaps God will be able to speak to me and explain why I'm such an
> asshole

God also know we sure as hell don't need two of you.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:30:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
>>it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
>>should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
>>maintenance.
>
>Google "Infant Failure" and then tell us if you still think that statement
>is valid.

The guys I bought my plane from had a 25 hour engine fail in their
current plane.

[Morgans]

"B A R R Y" > wrote
>
> The guys I bought my plane from had a 25 hour engine fail in their
> current plane.

That's O.K. , Barry. Only one particular idiot does not understand that
engines sometimes die young.

Why do we feel we need to convince HIM, anyway? I still don't get it.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:49:12 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:48:31 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>From accident reports. When I compare GA reports to commercial
>>airliner reports, the prominence of engine problems as a contributing
>>factor in accidents is difficult to ignore.
>
>Number of engines enters into it, too. When the vast majority of GA aircraft
>have an engine failure, they're going down. Airliners have more than one engine
>(by regulation) and mere engine failure only rarely results in an accident.
>Thus, even if the powerplant reliability rates were the same, airliners would
>have lower accident rates.

Forgot to mention, too, that there are a LOT more GA airplanes than airliners.

Examining an FAA Aircraft Registration database from about a year ago, it shows
359,540 total registrations. There are 17650 airplanes registered as transport
class. However, most of these are GA aircraft (Learjets, Hawkers, etc.).

I ran a search for Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed, SAAB, Douglas,
Aerospatiale, and Embraer aircraft (using shortened versions of the names and
wildcards), restricted the search to non-recip-powered aircraft (eliminates the
DC-3s and similar) and also limited it to fixed-wing aircraft (all those M-D
helicopters). I got 7307 registrations. If we (generously!) round this up to
an even 10K, that still means that only about one out of every 35 aircraft is in
airline service.

So of course you hear of more GA aircraft having engine problems...there ARE a
lot more of them.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Why do we feel we need to convince HIM, anyway? I still don't get it.

Trying to convince others is a good way to see if your own opinions
have a substantial and objective basis. Unfortunately, many people
get upset when they realize that their opinions are baseless.

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

[Montblack]

("WestCDA" wrote)
> Or the absence of air or igition - which are still not an 'engine
> problem'. For all that is known at this point there could have a raccoon
> living in the air intake, or bad wiring on an aftermarket ignition.
> Probability is more likely with fuel, but a 'sputtering' engine could have
> been a lot of things.


We're kind of splitting raccoon hairs here, aren't we?

Hair/fur, whatever.

Splitting the hairs under your raccoon hat. There.

When an engine sputters ...THAT'S A PROBLEM!

Ok, assuming you have some hair under your raccoon hat to begin with...


Montblack
We live (1/4 mile) from the Coon Rapids, MN border.

[Montblack]

("The Visitor" wrote)
>> Actually, the reliability of a properly maintained GA piston engine is
>> very high. The MTBF is of the order of 10**5 hours,

> Hmmm, and I buy lottery tickets with odds over 14,000,000 to 1, thinking,
> "I might win."


You're really buying lottery insurance. If it hits, you're covered.


Montblack

[Margy Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>
>>gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not saying
>>the engine stalled.
>
>
> But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>
It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane wings
stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.

Margy

[Peter R.]

On 2/4/2007 9:38:52 PM, Margy Natalie wrote:

> It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane wings
> stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.

I was joking. Even those smiley faces aren't enough anymore, it seems.

--
Peter

[Matt Whiting]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>
>>> gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not
>>> saying
>>> the engine stalled.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>>
> It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane wings
> stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.

Airplane engines stall also. Stall is a perfectly good word to use when
an airplane engine stops turning. They don't always stop, but if they
do, they have stalled. I suspect engines were stalling before airplane
wings were stalling. :-)

Matt

[Jim Logajan]

Margy Natalie > wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>> On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>>gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not
>>>saying the engine stalled.
>>
>> But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>>
> It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane
> wings stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.

Alas for aviation, the word "stall" probably had as one of its many
meanings that of engine stoppage long before airplanes came on the scene.
So it is perhaps either inappropriate or futile to ask people to drop
that meaning from the word. Context would normally disambiguate things;
e.g. "the airplane engine stalled" or "the wing stalled" are pretty
unambiguous, but "the airplane stalled" is ambiguous as to meaning
without further context. There are an awful lot of meanings to the word
"stall" and entering "define:stall" into Google (or looking into a decent
print dictionary) yields:

Stall:

* procrastinate: postpone doing what one should be doing; "He did not
want to write the letter and procrastinated for days"
* a compartment in a stable where a single animal is confined and fed
* come to a stop; "The car stalled in the driveway"
* booth: small area set off by walls for special use
* a booth where articles are displayed for sale
* deliberately delay an event or action; "she doesn't want to write the
report, so she is stalling"
* put into, or keep in, a stall; "Stall the horse"
* a malfunction in the flight of an aircraft in which there is a sudden
loss of lift that results in a downward plunge; "the plane went into a
stall and I couldn't control it"
* experience a stall in flight, of airplanes
* seating in the forward part of the main level of a theater
* carrel: small individual study area in a library
* cause an airplane to go into a stall
* cause an engine to stop; "The inexperienced driver kept stalling the
car"
* a tactic used to mislead or delay

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:38:52 -0500, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Peter R. wrote:

>>
>> But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>>
>It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane wings
>stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.
>
What happens when an auto engine stalls? I thought you could only
"stall" a car engine by applying a sudden load, as when popping the
clutch at low rpms. Jim L's list of definitions tends to support
that..

If that were the case, it would be impossible to stall an airplane
piston engine short of running the prop into the ground?

What happens when a turbine compressor "stalls"? Is there a critical
angle of attack for the turbine blades that's exceeded by running the
engine rpm too low or high for a given thrust? Or is backpressure the
culprit?

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:38:52 -0500, Margy Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>
>
>>>But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>>>
>>
>>It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane wings
>>stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.
>>
>
> What happens when an auto engine stalls? I thought you could only
> "stall" a car engine by applying a sudden load, as when popping the
> clutch at low rpms. Jim L's list of definitions tends to support
> that..
>
> If that were the case, it would be impossible to stall an airplane
> piston engine short of running the prop into the ground?

If I leave my car idling and the engine just quits on its own, I also
say that the engine stalled and most people I know use the term the same
way. It is unfortunate that the same word has two radically different
meanings WRT to airplanes, but that doesn't negate the validity of the
meaning WRT to the engine.

Actually, I always thought that stall was a very unfortunate choice for
the aerodymamic flow separation on an airfoil. Seems like a lot of more
appropriate choices could have been made.


Matt

[Margy Natalie]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Margy Natalie > wrote:
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/1/2007 9:12:05 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>>
>>>>gatt, call your local news station and give them an atta'boy for not
>>>>saying the engine stalled.
>>>
>>>But in this case it appears that the engine did just that. :)
>>>
>>
>>It didn't stall, it quit. Airplane engines don't stall, airplane
>>wings stall, airplane engines quit. It's an english thing.
>
>
> Alas for aviation, the word "stall" probably had as one of its many
> meanings that of engine stoppage long before airplanes came on the scene.
> So it is perhaps either inappropriate or futile to ask people to drop
> that meaning from the word. Context would normally disambiguate things;
> e.g. "the airplane engine stalled" or "the wing stalled" are pretty
> unambiguous, but "the airplane stalled" is ambiguous as to meaning
> without further context. There are an awful lot of meanings to the word
> "stall" and entering "define:stall" into Google (or looking into a decent
> print dictionary) yields:
>
> Stall:
>
> * procrastinate: postpone doing what one should be doing; "He did not
> want to write the letter and procrastinated for days"
> * a compartment in a stable where a single animal is confined and fed
> * come to a stop; "The car stalled in the driveway"
> * booth: small area set off by walls for special use
> * a booth where articles are displayed for sale
> * deliberately delay an event or action; "she doesn't want to write the
> report, so she is stalling"
> * put into, or keep in, a stall; "Stall the horse"
> * a malfunction in the flight of an aircraft in which there is a sudden
> loss of lift that results in a downward plunge; "the plane went into a
> stall and I couldn't control it"
> * experience a stall in flight, of airplanes
> * seating in the forward part of the main level of a theater
> * carrel: small individual study area in a library
> * cause an airplane to go into a stall
> * cause an engine to stop; "The inexperienced driver kept stalling the
> car"
> * a tactic used to mislead or delay
Dam** forgot my smiley face. I used that expression to get 10 year olds
to learn the difference between aerodynamic stalls and engine problems.
In aviation we do say the engine quit rather than stall to avoid
confusion.

Margy