Real stats on engine failures?

Know a bloke well with over 15'000 hours, he has had no engine failures.
He has had however 4 self inficted engine failures, these were fuel
system failures. Mostly failure to put enough in, failure to check
for water contamination properly, failure to know the aircraft fuel
system. This blokes expirence is all single engine, going from little
Lyc's to Radial's and turbine.

Most Iv'e come across in the last 25 years aviating have had no
problems, usually if there are it's a maintaince issue or operator
induced.


--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

studentpilot wrote:

Know a bloke well with over 15'000 hours, he has had no engine failures.
He has had however 4 self inficted engine failures, these were fuel
system failures. Mostly failure to put enough in, failure to check
for water contamination properly, failure to know the aircraft fuel
system. This blokes expirence is all single engine, going from little
Lyc's to Radial's and turbine.

Why do you exclude fuel exhaustion, fuel contamination etc? Don't they
happen if you're IFR?

If you're IFR or at night it doesn't really matter WHY it stops.

Andrew Rowley wrote in message . ..
studentpilot wrote:

Know a bloke well with over 15'000 hours, he has had no engine failures.
He has had however 4 self inficted engine failures, these were fuel
system failures. Mostly failure to put enough in, failure to check
for water contamination properly, failure to know the aircraft fuel
system. This blokes expirence is all single engine, going from little
Lyc's to Radial's and turbine.

Why do you exclude fuel exhaustion, fuel contamination etc? Don't they
happen if you're IFR?

If you're IFR or at night it doesn't really matter WHY it stops.

Because I can control these problems. If I do a proper preflight, the
probability of fuel contamination is very, very low. If I do the
proper fuel calculations and check the fuel levels and carry proper
reserves, I'm not going to run out of gas.

This is about risk management. I can manage the risks of fuel
contamination or exhaustion very easily, if I exercise diligence and
care. If those are no longer concerns, the primary engine-related
concern becomes mechanical failure, and that's what I'm looking at.


Cap

Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same thing.

Mike
MU-2


"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Andrew Rowley wrote in message
. ..
studentpilot wrote:

Know a bloke well with over 15'000 hours, he has had no engine
failures.
He has had however 4 self inficted engine failures, these were fuel
system failures. Mostly failure to put enough in, failure to check
for water contamination properly, failure to know the aircraft fuel
system. This blokes expirence is all single engine, going from little
Lyc's to Radial's and turbine.

Why do you exclude fuel exhaustion, fuel contamination etc? Don't they
happen if you're IFR?

If you're IFR or at night it doesn't really matter WHY it stops.

Because I can control these problems. If I do a proper preflight, the
probability of fuel contamination is very, very low. If I do the
proper fuel calculations and check the fuel levels and carry proper
reserves, I'm not going to run out of gas.

This is about risk management. I can manage the risks of fuel
contamination or exhaustion very easily, if I exercise diligence and
care. If those are no longer concerns, the primary engine-related
concern becomes mechanical failure, and that's what I'm looking at.


Cap

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same thing.

It's safest to assume that, but I suspect that in reality, only some small
subset even bothered to think hard enough about the issues to believe the
same thing.

True but I would assume that they thought that they had given the subject
adequate consideration. It is arogant to believe that everyone else is a
fool and you are not. My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are
confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows
that many (most?) cannot.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same
thing.

It's safest to assume that, but I suspect that in reality, only some small
subset even bothered to think hard enough about the issues to believe the
same thing.

My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are
confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows
that many (most?) cannot.

Give me an engine failure any day. Gyro failure is my worst nightmare.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Mike Rapoport" wrote
True but I would assume that they thought that they had given the subject
adequate consideration. It is arogant to believe that everyone else is a
fool and you are not. My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are
confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows
that many (most?) cannot.

Yeah, I've heard that song before. Even believed it. Then I had my
AI tumble. At night. In IMC. On the climbout. While being
rerouted. In spite of what everyone told me, it was a complete
non-event. Used the copilot side AI for a while, but quickly decided
it was too much hassle, and flying partial panel was easier. Since I
still had the copilot side AI, I was legal to continue the flight -
and I did. Shot the NDB at my destination, but the weather was crap
and the runway lights were inop, so I couldn't get in. Wound up
shooting the ILS to near mins in the rain at my alternate. No big
deal. Gyro failure is not a big deal if you train properly. I could
even argue that without the backup AI, I would have been safer that
night because I would have had to turn back and land.

On the other hand, an engine failure in a single engine airplane under
the same conditions would have been very, very ugly.

Michael

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
True but I would assume that they thought that they had given the subject
adequate consideration.

That would be a bad assumption.

It is arogant to believe that everyone else is a
fool and you are not.

That's true.

My fovorite ezample are those pilots who are
confident that they could handle an IMC gyro failure when the record shows
that many (most?) cannot.

And how many have actually practiced this situation frequently?

What people believe and what they are capable of are to different things.
For example, in a survey a few years back, a bunch of people were polled on
their driving ability. Almost all (like 95%) said "superior", even those
with extensive driving citations. When taken out on test tracks, it was even
worse; most could not handle even the most routine emergencies. Then, how
often have any of us ever gone back to a driving school aften getting our
license when we turned sixteen?


Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same
thing.

It's safest to assume that, but I suspect that in reality, only some
small
subset even bothered to think hard enough about the issues to believe
the
same thing.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same thing.

And presumably, all the pilots who had engine failures engaged the same
level of preflight diligence.