Real stats on engine failures?

"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