(Andrew Sarangan) wrote in message . com...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
supports this view?

Although in the majority of accidents the pilot knew something was
wrong, that does not mean that the majority of flights where the pilot
knew something was wrong necessarily resulted in an accident.

I don't think that's what he was getting at. He meant, I think,
that some pilots will take off knowing something's not right, then
that defect, whatever it is, COULD cause an accident.
This is a similar argument to the "taking off on one mag" thread
of a few days ago. There were some who would do it, some who wouldn't.
I've had two engine failures in my flying time, both in singles, both
with aging engines. Add this to the fact that I'm getting older and
more conservative, and that I'm an aircraft mechanic and know that if
one mag is bad, the other is likely not far behind if they are the
same age, I won't temp fate anymore. Of all airplane maintenance
problems, electrical defects are a large part, and of all the rough
engines I fix, ignition is by far the most common cause.
In spite of all the fuss over mechanical defects, the accidents
due to engine failure are usually the pilot's fault. I have a list
here of the big five causes of engine failures: Carb ice was most
common, followed by fuel starvation, water in the fuel, and practice
forced approaches when the weather was cold and the engine quit when
the pilot opened it too quick in the overshoot. Oil starvation came
last, and was sometimes caused by old oil hoses, corroded oil coolers,
or a loose drain plug that fell out. Except for most of the oil
starvation cases, these failures are caused by pilots who get
complacent, careless or forgetful of their training.

Dan