On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:26:21 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I'm currently engaged in a statistical analysis of accidents, and have read
about 600 reports in the last several weeks. You still see the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault. The vast majority of those cases involve engine failure
(in fact, I don't recall seeing cases that *didn't*).

Talking from experience, an engine failure doesn't mean accident.

Same as my experience... ended up gliding over downtown, on approach, with
the prop stopped. I'm analyzing the accidents included in the NTSB
accident database, which does not include incidents.

The FAA inspection after an accident is cursory. I respect the FAA guys
who do the initial investigation, but they do not perform the same level of
investigation that the NTSB does. In one case, the FAA inspector gave me a
totally wrong cause for the accident. It took metallurgical testing (which
the FAA doesn't do) to establish what had actually happened.

I would have to say, it depends WHEN the engine fails as to whether it
be pilot fault / error or mechanical. In my opinion, in most cases,
engine failure accidents should be attributed to pilot error if THEY
FAILED TO FLY THE PLANE during the crisis.

All of them flew the plane. Some just didn't land without damage. I'm not
going to sit in my comfy office chair and say, "This guy four years ago
should have been able to land that plane safely...."

Take two brand-new 172s at identical locations. Have both engines suffer
connecting rod failures. Have both pilots wearing parachutes.

Pilot #1 says, "This sucks," and bails out. The plane crashes and is
totally destroyed.

Pilot #2 says, "I think I can land in that opening in the trees." Luck
isn't with him that day, and he lands a bit long and rolls the plane into
the trees. He's uninjured, but dings a wing.

Probable NTSB rulings:

Case 1: Probable cause was the failure of the connecting rod.
Case 2: Pilot error, with failure of the connecting rod as a factor.

So, when you study the accident reports, I would be interested at what
phase of the flight did the engine fail. Was it on take off, climb out,
level flight, descent or landing phases?

For take off, and climb out, you really don't get much opportunity to
select an alternate emergency landing spot especially at an airport you
never have been to.

My study is only peripherally touching on pilot error. I'm after data on
hardware failures. I have a checkoff box for pilot error, with a few other
factors available, but my primary interest is in the accidents involving
failure of some component of the aircraft.

In my analysis, I would list both Case 1 and Case 2 above as a "Loss of
Power (Engine Internal)."

Successful landings generally don't even make an incident as in my
case. I was expecting "call the tower" routine after landing. I only
had to call Flight Services to let them know I was on the ground safely,
and have them report back to New Orleans Approach that I was OK.

The reportability criteria for aircraft accidents and incidents is
contained in NTSB Part 830. I didn't report my engine failure; no damage,
no injuries. I did have a thing or two to say to the FBO who sold me
contaminated fuel. :-)

Successful off field landings are "incidents". I hope you include those
in your study.

I'm using the NTSB accident reports, which don't include incidents unless
they are later upgraded to accidents.

So, in a nutshell, with the proper training, an engine failure can be a
non event providing you have the ample time to make appropriate
decisions.

Sorry, I believe that's oversimplified. All forced landings take some
element of luck. Two pilots pick different pastures that look the same
from 5,000 feet. Both have 8" tall grass, but one field is studded with old
railroad ties that you can't see until you get on short final. Time is
only one factor. Add a howling crosswind, wires you can't see until you
descend, a panicking passenger, and unanticipated better glide ratio
because of a stopped prop, and/or a tractor that pulls onto the field as
you're on short final. As Ernie Gann said, "Fate is the Hunter". There
are a lot of good pilots in graveyards.

I think most engine-failure cases are *survivable* (and, actually, most are
survived). But I don't fault someone who damages an airplane in a forced
landing. The primary goal in an emergency is the saving of the lives
involved. and most pilots appear to be pretty good at that.

For instance, in the year 2000, about 148 Cessna 172s had accidents, of
which 18 resulted in at least one fatality. Of the fatal crashes, none
involved a loss of engine power. Eight involved the pilot losing control
(typically stall/spin accident), two were VFR to IFR cases, four density
altitude, two midair, etc.

Allen
(who lives in the flatlands of the deep south)

Ron Wanttaja
(who learned to fly the flatlands of North Dakota, but now flies over the
mountains, forests, bays, and sounds of western Washington state.)