If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" writes:
My comments are specifically targeted at genuine *failures*. That is, something broke. Ah...o.k. That *is* different and I can appreciate the distinction. There are plenty of reasons an engine might stop running, but not all of them are pertinent to a reliability analysis discussing failure rates and statistical chances of failure. You seem to keep trying to introduce irrelevent types of engine failures, while I try to make clear what it is I'm talking about. No, I was coming at it more from the pilot's (rather than the mechanic's) perspective. It's not "irrelevent" to a pilot when the engine makes an uncommanded stop in flight. I think it's common for pilots to call such stoppages "engine failures." I can see that there might be a better term for it. O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage... Thanks for sticking with me through this. --kyler |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
... O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage... How about "undesired engine stoppage"? "Engine interruptus"? I dunno. Thanks for sticking with me through this. No problem...glad I could finally represent my thoughts in a way that was understandable. Pete |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Kyler
How about "Pilot induced engine failures" and "Mechanical engine failures" or "Non Pilot induced engine failures"? There are probably some more sharp ones out there who can parse your query and add to a proposed listG Big John On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:09:19 GMT, Kyler Laird wrote: "Peter Duniho" writes: My comments are specifically targeted at genuine *failures*. That is, something broke. Ah...o.k. That *is* different and I can appreciate the distinction. There are plenty of reasons an engine might stop running, but not all of them are pertinent to a reliability analysis discussing failure rates and statistical chances of failure. You seem to keep trying to introduce irrelevent types of engine failures, while I try to make clear what it is I'm talking about. No, I was coming at it more from the pilot's (rather than the mechanic's) perspective. It's not "irrelevent" to a pilot when the engine makes an uncommanded stop in flight. I think it's common for pilots to call such stoppages "engine failures." I can see that there might be a better term for it. O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage... Thanks for sticking with me through this. --kyler |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Big John writes:
O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage... How about "Pilot induced engine failures" and "Mechanical engine failures" or "Non Pilot induced engine failures"? Nope. Those would still be "... engine failures." As Peter has argued (I think) successfully, they're not failures of the engine. The difference between such stoppages and the ones we experience upon shutdown is the intention of the pilot. I should have consulted the NTSB earlier. Here's a report of a plane that went down around here recently. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00574&key=1 I'm referring to that because I recall (perhaps incorrectly) people calling it a forced landing due to "engine failure." Hmmm...how about "engine mismanagement"? (I'm willing to be liberal with the use of "manage" to include "So...you managed to fly into quite a bit of ice there...") I think I'll at least start saying "engine mechanical failure" in an attempt to be more a bit more clear. --kyler |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Well there is no maitenance on connecting rods and crankshafts.
Mike MU-2 "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... I don't have any personally but I have a friend that has had three in 3500hrs. One connecting rod failure in a 210. A crankshaft failure in an Azetec and I forget the details of the third failure. It has been estimated that 10% of Malibus have had inflight engine failures of some kind. It'd be interesting to know the maintenance history of those birds that did have failures (skimped maintenance, etc). It's also be interesting to know the total operating hours of the Malibu fleet, Lycoming vs. Continental... |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net... Well there is no maitenance on connecting rods and crankshafts. ....other than preventive. "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... I don't have any personally but I have a friend that has had three in 3500hrs. One connecting rod failure in a 210. A crankshaft failure in an Azetec and I forget the details of the third failure. It has been estimated that 10% of Malibus have had inflight engine failures of some kind. It'd be interesting to know the maintenance history of those birds that did have failures (skimped maintenance, etc). It's also be interesting to know the total operating hours of the Malibu fleet, Lycoming vs. Continental... |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
What preventive maitenance is done on either crankshafts of connecting rods?
Mike MU-2 "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net... Well there is no maitenance on connecting rods and crankshafts. ...other than .preventive "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... I don't have any personally but I have a friend that has had three in 3500hrs. One connecting rod failure in a 210. A crankshaft failure in an Azetec and I forget the details of the third failure. It has been estimated that 10% of Malibus have had inflight engine failures of some kind. It'd be interesting to know the maintenance history of those birds that did have failures (skimped maintenance, etc). It's also be interesting to know the total operating hours of the Malibu fleet, Lycoming vs. Continental... |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(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. I wasn't so much concerned about your personal setup but about your posting history, which is to pipe up whenever the subject of gyro failure (and bad outcomes thereof) are discussed and say something to the effect of well, I've had a gyro failure in actual and it was no big deal so contrary to popular opinion I don't think it's something a proficient pilot needs to sweat about. (I paraphrase here, and perhaps that wasn't the message you intended to convey, but it's the message I and, I think, others, have garnered from your posts) That's why I think the distinction between a single instrument failure, and vacuum failure (loss of two instruments) may be relevant to point out. 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. Actually, I'm glad to hear you say this. The impression that I've received from your previous posts is that you believed a vacuum failure should be no big deal at all to a proficient pilot. Not a reason to abort the flight, declare an emergency, and request no-gyro vectors to the nearest ILS, for example (which is my notion). If that's not the case, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to interpret some of what you've previously posted. If that is the case, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you feel lack of backup is so stupid -- if it's no big deal and any proficient pilot should be able to cope without breaking a sweat, why is backup important? If the cause of accidents following vacuum or gyro failure is lack of proper, recurrant training, why not just invest in training instead of redundant instrumentation or vacuum sources--isn't that what you've suggested in the past when the point has been raised? 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. That's certainly true for me. [nb this originally referred to "ugly outcomes" to gyro failures in IMC] 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. Apples and oranges to the topic under discussion here, which was whether the "ugly outcomes" of vacuum failure are entirely due to improper training. Unless I'm missing something, there is no requirement that an IPC necessarily include partial panel work, so it's not clear to me how your insurance company votes on this topic. The principle cause of accidents in light twins is not related to vacuum failure due to redundant systems. Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-8 powered Seabee | Corky Scott | Home Built | 212 | October 2nd 04 11:45 PM |
Dennis Fetters Mini 500 | EmailMe | Home Built | 70 | June 21st 04 09:36 PM |
My Engine Fire!! | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | March 31st 04 01:41 PM |
Engine... Overhaul? / Replace? advice please | text news | Owning | 11 | February 17th 04 04:44 PM |
Gasflow of VW engine | Veeduber | Home Built | 4 | July 14th 03 08:06 AM |