Real stats on engine failures?

"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*

ost (Ditch) wrote

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.

Big-time ditto from me on this. Couple years ago I had a complete
gyro failure at night, fortunately not IFR. No warning, no nothing.
Just failed completely and instantly. Subsequent investigation of the
literature showed that this is not an uncommon failure mode.

I don't fly IFR any more, and probably won't till I'm flying a plane
with backup gyros. That's one nice thing about the new Cessnas,
they've got backups.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

ost (Ditch) wrote in message ...
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.

In a SE airplane w/ an engine powered vacuum pump and w/out a backup
electric pump or backup electric gyros, engine failure will become
gyro failure in a minute or so.

Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
In a SE airplane w/ an engine powered vacuum pump and w/out a backup
electric pump or backup electric gyros, engine failure will become
gyro failure in a minute or so.

Not true unless the engine seizes. If it keeps windmilling, the gyros
will keep spinning.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Snowbird) wrote
In a SE airplane w/ an engine powered vacuum pump and w/out a backup
electric pump or backup electric gyros, engine failure will become
gyro failure in a minute or so.

Not true unless the engine seizes. If it keeps windmilling, the gyros
will keep spinning.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe windmilling will
produce sufficient vacuum to keep the gyros spinning reliably.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe windmilling will
produce sufficient vacuum to keep the gyros spinning reliably.

FWIW, my engine at idle won't keep the vacuum gauge in the green, but the AI
and DG appear to work properly. Would a windmilling prop produce as much as
1,000 rpm?

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

"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

Michael 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.

Thanks for the narrative -- it's useful information.

I'm curious where the statistics are that show that most pilots cannot
handle an AI failure in IMC. This FAA report

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/orl/files/advcir/P874052.TXT

states that vacuum failures are a factor in an average of 2 accidents per
year, and that there is an average of one vacuum-related accident for every
40,000 to 50,000 GA IFR flight plans filed. That doesn't tell us much,
though, since we don't know how many non-fatal vacuum failures occurred
during those flights.


All the best,


David