Real stats on engine failures?

"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

"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

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

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

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...

"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...

(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".

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...

(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