Real stats on engine failures?

"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

David Megginson wrote
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.

I have about 700 hours flying behind a dry pump, and one catastrophic
failure. I also have about 1400 hours flying planes with gyros (some
of my time is in gliders and no-gyro taildraggers) and at least three
gyro failures. I have to believe that vacuum or gyro failure occurs
AT LEAST once every 1000 hours.

Assuming that the average GA IFR flight plan leads to 30 minutes of
IMC (I know a lot of them are filed procedurally so I'm being
pessimistic) that still sounds like 1 accident in 20,000 hours. So it
sounds to me like 95%+ of the pilots who experience vacuum or gyro
failure are handling it without an accident.

From what I've seen of GA IFR pilots, at most 10% are getting
recurrent training in partial panel operations to PTS standards.

Michael

Michael wrote:

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

Assuming that the average GA IFR flight plan leads to 30 minutes of
IMC (I know a lot of them are filed procedurally so I'm being
pessimistic) that still sounds like 1 accident in 20,000 hours. So it
sounds to me like 95%+ of the pilots who experience vacuum or gyro
failure are handling it without an accident.

That sounds pretty reasonable. As I just mentioned in another posting, the
report also mentions that all of the fatal GA accidents from vacuum failures
in their study period happened in high-performance aircraft with retractable
gear.

From what I've seen of GA IFR pilots, at most 10% are getting
recurrent training in partial panel operations to PTS standards.

In Canada, partial panel is not even part of the IFR flight test (though we
do learn it during training). On the other hand, we have to retake our
entire flight test every two years, and the examiner can always fail
something (including the AI) if he/she wants to. The other benefit is that
without the partial panel and unusual-attitude recovery, we can take our
flight tests in actual IMC, as I did.


All the best,


David

I have also had a gyro fail (in a Turbo Lance that had only one AI) in IMC
flight along with an partial electrical failure (lost the alternator) and
managed to get to my destination after shooting a localizer approach to
pretty much minimiums with a Garmin 12XL that I had to program the approach
waypoints into while flying partial panel AND it was in freezing rain. No
****, this really happened. Every emergency I have ever had was on that one
flight which happened to be my first serious IFR flight after getting the IR
(accross the Sierra From Minden to San Jose in a major blizzard)

That experience doesn't convince me that there are not plenty of senarios
where it wouldn't have had a happy ending.

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"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

As they say, "Train for the worst. Hope for the best".

Big John

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:38:51 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

I have also had a gyro fail (in a Turbo Lance that had only one AI) in IMC
flight along with an partial electrical failure (lost the alternator) and
managed to get to my destination after shooting a localizer approach to
pretty much minimiums with a Garmin 12XL that I had to program the approach
waypoints into while flying partial panel AND it was in freezing rain. No
****, this really happened. Every emergency I have ever had was on that one
flight which happened to be my first serious IFR flight after getting the IR
(accross the Sierra From Minden to San Jose in a major blizzard)

That experience doesn't convince me that there are not plenty of senarios
where it wouldn't have had a happy ending.

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
"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

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.
[...]
Gyro failure is not a big deal if you train properly.

Well, for those of us less studly than this, I'd still take an engine
failure over gyro failure in IMC under most conditions. Maybe given
the time/money to train "properly" gyro failure isn't such a major
emergency. But I don't have either the time or the money, so this
instrument-rated pilot isn't flying IFR till he gets a plane with
backup gyros or electric AI.

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

Good point. Climbout is a really horrible time for an engine failure.
In cruise I'm still much more afraid of gyro failure though. As I
said in another post on this subject, some of the reason for this is
that it often happens (and did to me) with little or now warning.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

jim rosinski wrote:

Well, for those of us less studly than this, I'd still take an engine
failure over gyro failure in IMC under most conditions. Maybe given
the time/money to train "properly" gyro failure isn't such a major
emergency. But I don't have either the time or the money, so this
instrument-rated pilot isn't flying IFR till he gets a plane with
backup gyros or electric AI.

Yow! I hope that you mean an engine failure in fairly high IMC (i.e. the
ceiling well above terrain and obstacles). Compared to a forced landing
with, say, a 300 ft ceiling in an area with lots of hills and towers, flying
in IMC with the TC and mag compass sounds like a walk in the park.

The FAA report I quoted earlier in this thread stated an interesting fact --
all of the GA fatalities during their study period due to vacuum failure
were in high-performance planes with retractable gear. Nobody was spiraling
in a 182 or Cherokee Six after a vacuum failure in IMC, much less a Skyhawk
or Cherokee. I'm sure that they do happen, but they must not be so common.

That suggests to me that in the unlikely event I ever can afford a
high-performance retractable, the first action in event of lost gyros should
be to lower the gear, airspeed be damned.


All the best,


David

(Michael) wrote in message . com...

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. .... Gyro failure is not a big deal if you train properly.

I really don't want to restart that whole thread but FWIW:

One observation from the recent ASF/FAA vacuum failure study
was that pilots who lost only their AI (electric HSI did not
fail) did not lose control of the airplane, while a significant
number of pilots (same aircraft) lost control when they lost
both. There was no correlation to time in type or total time.

This result suggests to me that it might be a mistake to
extrapolate from "lose AI no problem" to "lose gyros no
problem".

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

No argument there. But certainly there are a number of pilots
who have found vacuum system failure in night IMC to be fatally
ugly.

There are currently no "real stats" which prove or disprove
the contention that this ugliness is entirely due to improper
training.

Them's the facts,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
One observation from the recent ASF/FAA vacuum failure study
was that pilots who lost only their AI (electric HSI did not
fail) did not lose control of the airplane, while a significant
number of pilots (same aircraft) lost control when they lost
both. There was no correlation to time in type or total time.

This result suggests to me that it might be a mistake to
extrapolate from "lose AI no problem" to "lose gyros no
problem".

That's somewhat valid. I don't worry about this situation for two
reasons: First, I have dual vacuum pumps, so loss of both gyros
simultaneously is very, very unlikely. The same is true of a wet pump
setup. I've already made my feelings about flying IMC with a single
dry pump and no backups well known, but in case anyone missed it -
it's stooopid. Second, my GPS has an HSI mode.

The reason I say it's somewhat valid is this - my (admittedly somewhat
limited) experience as an instrument instructor is that most people
miss having the DG a lot more than they miss having the AI. While
there is a case to be made that a jet can't be flown without an AI (no
jet crew that lost all attitude indicators in IMC has ever survived)
light piston airplanes most certainly can be.

There are currently no "real stats" which prove or disprove
the contention that this ugliness is entirely due to improper
training.

No, but that's the way to bet. It's certainly how my insurance
company is betting - I'm now required to take a full IPC with engine
cuts every year in make and model, regardless of recency of
experience, if I want to keep my relatively low rates.

Michael