My comment was in anger over the fact that the aforementioned idiot chose to attempt to create news by connecting two unrelated incidents and thereby somehow implying MFC (who are a very responsible operator) were in some way implicit in the engine failure. So perhaps it doesn't scan well but it doesn't escape from the fact that the guy is unquestionably an idiot. Good club, decent aircraft, engine failures happen and the pilot should be applauded. Unlike the chap who landed his microlight in a tree next to a golf course in Dundee, who was a shit pilot that got himself in trouble and failed to find the fairway.
Agreed! In my opinion the hack who wrote that sensationalist piece has demonstrated the worst side of journalism! MFC are a highly professional operator and such irresponsible news reporting does the club no favours!
Funny I was just thinking that. What relevance is the comment about the airframe being involved in another incident years ago? Are we meant to draw conclusions from that? Or is it just gutter journalism again?
Maybe if they had spent more time on the cause check and cought the carb ice before the engine stopped they would have not have to demonstrate their skills conducting the forced approach manoever.........
There's a rumour that it was carb ice so BPF is definitely jumping to conclusions. Nonetheless that doesn't mean the pilot was at fault, there's a host of technical reasons why the carb heat didn't work that wouldn't have been noticed on power checks.
Engine failures happen, it isn't ALWAYS the fault of the pilot.
Engine failures happen, it isn't ALWAYS the fault of the pilot.
Engine failures happen, it is ALMOST ALWAYS the fault of the pilot
A study of accident reports where the engine failed in your typical light Cessna/Piper, will show that at least 80 % were directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot (eg carb ice, fuel exhaustion/mismanagement, contaminated fuel, taking off with a know fault etc,etc).
One of my pet peeves is that flight training concentrates almost solely on the least likely engine failure scenario, a sudden and complete loss of power with no warning.
“A study of accident reports where the engine failed in your typical light Cessna/Piper, will show that at least 80 % were directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot”
Really? I have had one total and one partial and both were due to faulty parts / maintenance provided by professionals. Other ones I know of have maintenance bias as well but not saying that is in any way scientific.
Every time I think I have seen the ultimate in pedantry, PPRuNe manages to raise the bar . I would suggest when the engine ceases to provide thrust you have suffered an Engine Failure. Whether the reason it has suddenly got quiet was because the crankshaft broke or you let sufficient carb ice develop that the engine could not run makes not a whit of difference to that fact.
What is different is that there may not have been any warning of the crankshaft failure but there would absolutely be warning that carb ice was developing.
However even catastrophic internal failures often give some warning in the form of sudden increases in oil consumption, abnormal temps and pressures, or unusual sounds/noises. The only serious engine problem I have ever had in a single was a failing oil pump drive in a C 150. I caught the declining oil pressure early and was able to get to within gliding distance of my home airport before the oil pressure went to zero and I shut the engine down. Since I shut the engine down and got on the ground before it failed the authorities did not count it as an engine failure.
Now if I had not paid any attention to the gauges and let the engine run on no oil pressure until it inevitably failed then I would consider this "engine failure" as falling into one of the 80% that where pilot action/inaction contributed to the failure.
Rod 1: What engines did you have your failure and partial failure ?
"Engine failures happen, it is ALMOST ALWAYS the fault of the pilot"
Oh well then, that's it settled, no need for the AAIB then. May as well hang 'em now.
I suggest you go and read all the existing AAIB reports, as well as those from the Aviation Accident Boards of the USA, Canada, and Australia. You will find a discouraging large number of references to "fuel exhaustion", "fuel mismanagement", "fuel contamination" and "carburator icing".
While we like to think that, God Forbid, and the engine failed it will be a totally unpreventable mechanical failure and we will then conduct a perfectly flown forced approach into a field only chosen after assessing the soil type, crop composition and the species of the farm animals, just like we were taught is the "right" way to deal with an "engine failure".
Sadly the accident statistics paint a rather less rosy picture which describe many preventable accidents. My point is not to point fingers, but rather to suggest that we should collectively pay attention to where we as a group are screwing up and ask ourselves if there are ways we could improve out flying practices in order to reduce the risk of a mistake resulting in a bad out come.
One of my biggest problems with how "engine failures" are taught is that the exercise always starts with a total loss of power. I think the words "engine failure" should be banished from flight training and instead we should talk about " engine power emergencies " This could involve anything from a small loss of power to a total failure. In my training I emphasize the importance of knowing what approximate RPM (or MP) is required to maintain level flight. In the event of a power loss the first decision is to ask "do I have enough power to maintain altitude". If I do then I have more options than if I do not, in which case I will be forced to land.
In some respects the total power loss situation is easier to deal with then a partial loss as the situation is less ambiguous then when you have some but not enough power. Unfortunately these kinds of scenarios are hardly ever covered in flight training.......
I have never had an engine failure, but have had a tank-in-use fuel blockage, and fuel starvation due to an empty tank - both fixed by changing tanks. I've had power loss due to carburetter gasket leakage, which allowed me to return and land. I've had a power loss which I thought was carb icing, but when it didn't respond to carb heat, I tried aggresive mixture leaning, which on return to normal richness allowed me to make it to my destination. On a check-out with an instructor two years ago, I was given an engine failure at over 3000'. As I trimmed for 70 kts, I said what I would do - carb heat, mixture rich, fuel pump on, change tanks, try one mag if miss-firing - the instructor grabbed the yoke, and told me if it was real I would be in a panic, and to just select a field I replied that so far I had always managed to keep the engine going.
Came across an interesting photo of the incident on Motors North - Home open the 'new issue' link on RHS, page 11 and zoom in to picture. Picture shows Mercedes G-Wagen reaching the crash site. Good detail, not exactly pilot friendly terrain.
Thats as good as your going to get for the majority of scotland North of perth and west of Elgin apart from the tattie fields along the A96 and the Black isle. If you do get fields they tend to be crofting fields which are tiny and surrounded by dry stone dykes.
Which is why there are more than a few debates about if you had to would you stall it into the tops of a forestry plantation or take you best shot putting it down onto a peat bog which as any hill walker will tell you isn't that flat.