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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. .. Lack of use is the big killer. People base a lot of things on how many hours in service an engine has, but they accumulate problems while sitting as well. Which is why I stipulated both an "hours of operation" and a "calendar time" measure. Either one is significant, you are correct. I don't particularly enjoy flying with an engine that's just had some major work, but I'd sure take that over flying with an engine that's NEVER had ANY work. And an engine that's gotten a few hours under its belt after maintenance looks better every flight. Pete |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same thing. And presumably, all the pilots who had engine failures engaged the same level of preflight diligence. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net... True but I would assume that they thought that they had given the subject adequate consideration. That would be a bad assumption. It is arogant to believe that everyone else is a fool and you are not. That's true. 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. And how many have actually practiced this situation frequently? What people believe and what they are capable of are to different things. For example, in a survey a few years back, a bunch of people were polled on their driving ability. Almost all (like 95%) said "superior", even those with extensive driving citations. When taken out on test tracks, it was even worse; most could not handle even the most routine emergencies. Then, how often have any of us ever gone back to a driving school aften getting our license when we turned sixteen? Mike MU-2 "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... Presumably all the pilots who had engine failures believed the same thing. It's safest to assume that, but I suspect that in reality, only some small subset even bothered to think hard enough about the issues to believe the same thing. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |