Originally Posted by
Pace
BPF
Excellent points but cannot agree with the above statement! I had an engine failure in an almost new Seneca Five! The engine went after takeoff at grosse weight in the climb out at 200 feet.
Very bad vibration and yaw but as the engine was still producing a small amount of power and I instinctively knew pulling it would mean a certain descent I kept the thing going one hand ready on the prop lever!
I struggled to 800 feet agl by which time the vibrations were so bad I had no further choice but to feather and shut down the unit,
A circuit at 800 feet and successful landing.
One of the PAX was a keen movie maker and filmed the whole takeoff engine power clearly visible!
Continental declared it must be over boost on takeoff as three rocker shafts had sheared clean off!
The film proved otherwise! The engine was removed for examination and an admittance from continental that all the rocker shafts had been mistakenly over torqued at manufacture! A complete new unit arrived on warranty within 2 weeks.
While I take your point on mismanagement engines do fail unilaterally especially pistons and that shows in stats comparing pistons to turbines which are far more reliable.
Pace
I suggest you re read my post. I indicated that IMO the chances of a sudden
failure (not partial failure) but failure which in this context means no power, in
cruise where there is no prior warning and/or the pilot actions/inactions caused the failure is basically zero.
In other words the scenario that all flight schools use as the start of the forced approach exercise which involves a sudden and complete loss of power with no warning is in fact the least likely engine failure scenario according to any review of accident reports.
In your example you did not have an engine failure you had a partial engine failure followed by a shut down
by you at the moment of your choice. If you had being flying a single engine aircraft I would assume you would have used the remaining power to reduce your rate of descent and to assist you in manoevering the aircraft towards the most open area running the engine to destruction if necessary.
The bottom line is that the type of failure you had is very rare yet almost all of the training in flight school forced approach training situates that most unlikely event as the reason you will need to carry out the forced approach manoever.
Why are we spending so much time practicing something that almost never happens while devoting so little time to educating new pilots on avoiding the pilot caused engine failures that are responsible for 80 % of the engine stoppages ?
There was a very interesting article in the accident report section of Pilot magazine a few months ago. It involved a pilot flying a UK Pa 28 which suffered a total loss of power. He executed a good forced landing in difficult circumstances which result in no injuries, albeit with extensive damage to the aircraft. He was quoted as saying that he regularly practiced forced approach and credited that practice for the successful outcome of his emergency.
Good news story right ? Well not really as the reason the engine failed was because it was a December day with high humidity with an OAT of + 5 C and he failed to properly anticipate the need for carb heat and then failed to appreciate the signs of developing carb ice and let the ice build to such an extent the engine failed. It would seem to me that instead of spending all his time practicing force landings, if he spent a little of that time learning about the cause and prevention of carb ice there would be one less wrecked Pa 28 in England today........