Real stats on engine failures?

I guess I don't agree. My experience is that maitenance creates many
problems. I agree that the engine will last longer if you change the oil
more frequently but changing the oil doesn't prevent failures. Routine
maitenance doesn't detect impending connecting rod failures, turbo bearing
about the sieze ect. I have seen and heard of too many oil leaks, fuel
leaks, rubbing tubes and various parts coming loose or falling off...all
caused by "maitenance".

Mike
MU-2

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
You are probably more likely to have an engine failure from maitenance
than
from lack of maitenance.

Cute. But not really all that true, IMHO.

It depends on over how long a period of time you're talking about. If you
mean the instant after some maintenance is done, well sure...it's true
(but
obviously so, and not interestingly so). But if you look at the same
question over 2000 hours of operation or one or two decades, I suspect
that
lack of maintenance will show up as much more of an issue. The lack of
oil
changes alone are likely to be a major problem, never mind the myriad of
fixable problems that would normally be detected during routine
maintenance.

Pete

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
[...] I have seen and heard of too many oil leaks, fuel
leaks, rubbing tubes and various parts coming loose or falling off...all
caused by "maitenance".

Well, granted, the engines on your plane require a much more specialized
maintenance crew than the one Lycoming on mine. But in spite of the very
real possibility of human error during maintenance, as far as I know more
engine failures are prevented by maintenance than are caused by it. I would
be very surprised if you could find statistics to the contrary.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

[...] I have seen and heard of too many oil leaks, fuel
leaks, rubbing tubes and various parts coming loose or falling off...all
caused by "maitenance".

Well, granted, the engines on your plane require a much more specialized
maintenance crew than the one Lycoming on mine. But in spite of the very
real possibility of human error during maintenance, as far as I know more
engine failures are prevented by maintenance than are caused by it. I would
be very surprised if you could find statistics to the contrary.

I'm a Lycoming-running statistic (n=1). I "lost" an engine because the
throttle cable came off months after the engine was replaced at annual.
Fortunately I noticed it on the runup. But it happened the night before
when I was dodging lightning on the approach to Durango. (I didn't notice
it then because I rolled in just ahead of the hail and was more interested
in getting under cover than parking perfectly.)

I have way too many examples of mechanics screwing up my plane.

--kyler

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
I'm a Lycoming-running statistic (n=1). I "lost" an engine because the
throttle cable came off months after the engine was replaced at annual.
Fortunately I noticed it on the runup.

An engine failure on the ground isn't an engine failure.

Seriously though, that's the whole point of preflight inspections and
runups. The only question here is what's more likely to cause an
*in-flight* engine failure. Is it maintenance? Or lack of maintenance?

I too have had a variety of "failures" (engine-related and otherwise), some
of which were a direct result of work done on the airplane. Fortunately,
none happened in flight. But the fact that a mechanic is falliable does not
mean that the engine is better off without the mechanic.

If any of you "mechanics are bad for my airplane!" folks actually have some
hard numbers to show that airplanes not given any maintenance are more
reliable than airplanes that have received maintenance, by all means, show
it (I don't believe you can). Otherwise, you are taking a cute joke WAY too
far.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
I'm a Lycoming-running statistic (n=1). I "lost" an engine because the
throttle cable came off months after the engine was replaced at annual.
Fortunately I noticed it on the runup.

An engine failure on the ground isn't an engine failure.

Like I said, I lost it in flight. I noticed it on the ground.

--kyler

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
Like I said, I lost it in flight. I noticed it on the ground.

I think you're missing the point (even ignoring the apparent inconsistencies
in the event you're trying to describe).

Pete