How safe is a SEP aircraft?

[P1 Forever]

Hi there,

I was just thinking, how safe is a single engined aircraft such as a cessna or piper in terms of the engine cutting out?

For instance, if you carry out all the necessary checks, carb heat, mixture rich/lean, fuel selector,etc... then what are the chances if any that the engine will just stop? The reason I ask is that I always have this in my mind especially during take-off or flying over populated areas and sometimes water!

I know they get serviced quite frequently but does anyone know of anyone who has been involved in an incident/accident when an engine has stopped mid-flight?

Thanks, and I shall look forward to your replys.

[White Bear]

There is no easy answer to the question, "When will 'my' engine fail?".
I can say, with some authority:
1. Engines always stop for a reason.
2. Eventually all engines will stop.
The big question is: Where is your engine, at any time, between these two points......?
Who said "Nobody lives forever".
W.B.

[Monocock]

Engines do stop.

When they do it becomes VERY VERY quiet. Almost as if the engine was a large raucous football crowd that suddenly has been told to shut up and watch how you handle the situation.

Sit back and think about it. Full power on take off. All is fine. Glancing across at the ASI keeping near to 70kts. Looking down at the runway and suddenly.............................silence.

A heart stopping silence. Someone in the circuit makes a radio call and it is extra loud without the competition of the engine noise.

For the first time ever you will hear the controls creak as you move them. You can now hear yourself breathing through the mike on the headset. The wind is whistling gently over the airframe. The propellor is like a plank of wood attached to the a/c. You are going down really quite fast.

It doesn't happen often but believe me, when it does, you will have nightmares about it for a long time afterwards.

[IO540]

You will die eventually, for sure. It's better to have lived an interesting life before one dies (one cannot have an interesting life after one dies because of all the worms). And flying is a good way to make life interesting.

The average time between engine failures is vaguely of the order of 5000 hours, but I am sure that average hides a massive standard deviation - because of the huge range of engines, engine ages, good and bad engine management, and of variable maintenance standards.

It is a good policy to wear a jacket and carry a raft when over water, avoid flying over large amount of terrain (mountains or forests) where there is nowhere to land, avoid flying at night, and avoid flying if the cloudbase is only a few hundred feet above the ground. Do all these things, and one should survive an engine failure.

A lot of people just run out of juice....

[S-Works]

had one in my first 50hrs as a pilot. which means in the 1-5000 ratio I have a few hundred hours before my next one.......

Life is for living...... remember riding a box cart as a kid without brakes or drinking from the hose pipe and not bottled water or sharing a can of drink with a bunch of mates?

Death is a predator you cant outrun so you better just have fun on the way!!

[Andy_R]

Monocock

Superb description, can almost picture the whole thing - and you only had 100' to take all that in :sad:

[bar shaker]

If you fly as if it is always just about to happen, you will walk away from it.

If you fly as if things like that only happen to others, then we will be reading an AAIB report about you and you may well not have walked away.

Any engine, piston or turbine, can suddenly and unexpectedly fail. It could happen in 4999 hours time. It could happen on your next take off.

Fly accordingly.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

You should treat every flight with the option the ENGINE WILL STOP!!

Because they DO:{

[MLS-12D]

I do not have statistics conveniently at hand, but I seem to recall that the two most common causes of engine failure are fuel starvation/mismangement, and fuel contamination. Both of those problems are directly within a pilot's control, and can be virtually eliminated by following proper procedures. See generally Norbert Slepyan, Defensive Flying (1986).

Aside from the above, engines can and do experience catastrophic mechanical failures. As most pilots are not qualified mechanics, and taking into account that few (none?) of us are prepared to take the time to remove an aircraft's cowling to do a thorough inspection of the engine compartment before flying, it's largely a matter of hoping that your mechanic did a thorough annual inspection, and trusting to luck. Fortunately, such spontaneous mechanical problems are quite rare.

A pilot who always takes into account the possibility of an engine failure is no more than prudent, and will likely respond better to such an emergency because he or she has anticipated and planned for it. But as some of the other posters have implied, there is no such thing as perfect safety in aviation unless you simply refuse to fly.

[DubTrub]

P1F:

There is a HUGE chunk of your training that practices for this (even more in chopperopterers).

If you fly enough, it very well might happen. But you should have been trained for it (and after qualifying, practiced for it).

But it is less likely to happen, statistically, than

a) divorce
b) dying in bed
c) dying getting out of bed
d) dying going downstairs for a cuppa.

etc etc

So don't be frightened of it, get the correct training and keep in practice. (Flying that is, not marriage or bed habits).

I'm still waiting for my first engine failure; I am well overdue, but I do practice an awful lot.

[edited to add that I sort of did have one many moons ago...I pulled the fuel knob out instead of the carb heat...but I was within gliding range of the runway, and thought it would be better to land rather than fluff up the correct position of the controls.

And more recently, I had to turn mine off in flight, because oil pressure went to zero. I was overhead a 2-mile long runway at the time, and landed OK, problem was finger trouble on the part of the oil filter replacement maintenance chappie who failed to tighten it up 20 minutes previously...I can tell you, I gave myself a right good slapping.]

[IO540]

MLS-12D

Here in the UK, it is not even legal for a pilot to remove the cowling on a Transport CofA aircraft. Only the portion of a cowling which has hinges and quick release catches may be legally opened.

I am also not sure that you would see anything that might cause a catastrophic mechanical failure.

In my PPL training I did spot bad / exposed / broken wiring and refused to fly that aircraft (much to the instructor's disgust) but mechanical things are not generally visible.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Agree with IO540

Removing the cowling would not have seen that my con-rod was about to snap on takeoff!

It is something that we should all expect to happen on every flight and treat it accordingly.

Before my engine failure I was far to confident, charging off in all types of weather without really believing the fan would ever go bang! It does give you a reality check and changes the way you fly.

For sometime after I was not really enjoying flying as I used to and have only recently started to relax back in the seat.

After all the most important thing about GA is to ENJOY :ok:

[BEXIL160]

Thanks CBl... you said
For sometime after I was not really enjoying flying as I used to and have only recently started to relax back in the seat.


I had a similar "incident" back in the summer. Nobody died and only the aeroplane a bit bent (but easily fixable.. it has been), but I was shaken. Practicising PFLs really does pay off.

I have flown on many occasions since, on the basis that "having fallen off the horse, the best remedy was to get straight back on".

Unfortunately, it's taken a quite a while to actually Enjoy flying again, even though i still felt fairly competent. I've spent lots of time listening to the engine note for the merest quiver, and glancing at the engine instruments.:( Not "fun" is it?

Like you I'm only just begining to relax and begin to enjoy being in the sky again... I thought I was alone, so it's good to hear that someone has had a similar experience. Thank you.:ok:

rgds BEX

[MLS-12D]

I am also not sure that you would see anything that might cause a catastrophic mechanical failure.Yes, agreed. I did not mean to suggest that removal of the cowling followed by a visual inspection of the engine would safeguard against all possibility of failure ... just that, since most of us don't even take the time to perform such an inspection (I certainly don't), we have to rely upon the excellent records of Continental, Lycoming, and P&W.

[radarcontrol]

jeez guys - are you trying to scare the living daylights out of us low hour students?? :uhoh:

I went solo not so long ago and had there been an engine failure I really don't know that I would have dealt with it OK. 12 hours is not enough time to become competent at such things (especially when most of that time has been spent learning which way is up!!). M akes you wonder why students are allowed solo in 12 hours when maybe it should be more like double that.

It also made me think carefully about the safety of flying GA aircraft out of certain aerodromes. The place I fly from.. if the engine died on the climbout on a particular runway.. I really wouldn't like to guess where you'd put her down. I suspect the answer is in someones back yard.

Safe flying everyone...

[Flyboy-F33]

cblinton...

As someone who flies behind a similar engine (yours was a Continental wasn't it)? I have a few questions.
How old was the engine, both in years and hours? How much oil was it using prior to the failure? Had you noticed any changes between the time you aquired the a/c and the failure? When it failed, could you still see out of the windshield or did you rely on the DV window?

Thanks

GG

[Monocock]

Flyboy

I know you didn't ask the question to me but I will answer it anyway as I am quiet for a moment at work.......

Continental 65

Total time since zero houred was 1422.

1 quart of oil per 7 hours flying was being used.

No change in oils consumption leading up to failure.

The failure was nothing more than just that, a failure. There was no splurges of oil etc. It just stopped.

radarcontrol - don't be put off but at the same time don't expect too much from your engine. They DO stop. I spent many hours reading accident reports when they came through the post and thought "God how awful for the pilot". I felt as though I was on the outside of it and that it wouldn't happen to ME......

I too have spent the last 20 flying hours since the accident listening out for the slightest change in noise from the engine and looking at the guages approximately every 10 seconds.......I wonder when my paranoia will decline.

[Send Clowns]

Engines stop. I know a few people who have had engine failures. However there should be very few circumstances in which the people on board cannot survive. If the forced landing looks like turning into a crash, then fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible, and try to hit the softest, cheapest object in the area at the lowest controllable speed.

Examples: (i) a light twin crashed on approach, having lost both engines due to fuel exhaustion. The approach was over suburban housing, the only landing area people's gardens. (ii) A light single crashed on climbout, due to unknown cause, probably power loss. Under the climbout were some large, flat fields surrounded by soft hedges.

In one accident no-one was seriously injured, in the other all on board received fatal injuries. Why? Well the non-fatal accident was example (i), the fatal example(ii). In the first case the pilot kept the aicraft in a flying condition, even as he hit someone's shed. In the second it appears the aircraft stalled and entered either a spiral descent or a spin.

In both cases an element of luck prevented further deaths, but it is clear that the pilot's handling of the power failure, not the circumstances in which it happened, decided the outcome. If you know what to do in an emergency, and are well-practised, SEPs are very safe.

[Monocock]

If someone tells me how to I'll post a picture of the result of an EFATO with a good outcome..........

[rustle]

email me the picture and I'll host if for you Mono -- or use your own webspace if you have some and simply point the URL to the image.

[Monocock]

Can you pm me your email address?

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Flyboy

It was a IO470-C

TSMOH 475 Hours !! (yes very young)

And there were no signs at all of anything wrong prior to the big bang. The engine runnup at Shoreham was fine and 60 secs later bang.

The windshield was covered in oil and also smoke in the cabin so not great views were had.

The report can be found here (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_507887.hcsp)


http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/29/20/6562920.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=17:00:57

[Mike Cross]

Like Monocock I fly something that will still fly at around 40 mph. If you manage to hit something not too solid at 40 mph it should be survivable (As Monocock has proved;) ).

One of the big dangers seems to be trying to avoid the ground. Drop a wing at 150 feet and you have little chance.

The BBC reporter Peter Snow and others showed you could even survive coming down in trees quite well story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465039.stm).

[rustle]

The picture Monocock refers to:

http://www.tdrs.co.uk/aviation/LuscCrash.jpg

[Monocock]

.
















:sad:

[Tinstaafl]

A generality I know, but contact with the ground while under control at landing speeds/configuration is usually non-fatal. Contact with the ground after losing control usually is.

[MLS-12D]

How old was the engine, both in years and hours?I agree that a tired old engine is more likely to fail than is a new one; but please don't fall into the trap of assuming that a new engine/airplane is essentially vice free by virtue of that status.

See generally pp. 63-69 of Rules & Inspections (1987), Vol. 6 in the "Light Plane Maintenance Library" series, for a discussion of assembly defects, many quite major. :ooh:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

don't fall into the trap of assuming that a new engine/airplane is essentially vice free Don't aero engines have an S-curve like other things?? High failure rate for a new widget, as manufacturing defects manifest themselves; then low failure rate during middle age; then rising failure rate in old age as things start wearing out? One would surely assume that a brand new engine was more likely to fail than one a few hundred hours old?

[Sunfish]

(Sigh) The probability of expereincing an engine failure in a twin is double that of a single engine aircraft, thats why certain twins are known locally as "Doctor Killers". You have to be very very quick if you get a failure on a twin as many of them don't fly at all well on one engine.

God forbid I have an engine failure, I do PFL's all the time and try and work out where I might go to land all the time I'm flying.

Potential catastrophic failure is unlikely to be picked up by an external inspection of an engine, but you never know. All I do is what I'm told to do, but I always try and have a really extra good look at the engine, wiring and pipework, just in case.

[DubTrub]

Well done, Mono, even repairable. To maintain the right way up in a taildragger, you must have been doing something right; hope I have the same good sense when my number's up.

Is this the one on your Avatar?

Sunfish Usually only in that small speed range just after take-off.
The moniker you refer to is usually accorded the Bonanza. (Sorry, cbl, well done on your well-deserved award). But good thing to practice, Sunfish.

GtW You are correct, except that I think all new (Cont and Lyc) engines are tested at Factory for one hour at full chat on a dyno. From cold. To eliminate just that. Failure is more likely after maintenance. Ahem guilty, your Honour.

Tinstaafl I agree with your generality. As someone once said "Fly it all the way through the crash until you stop" or words to that effect.

DT

[Evo]

On a point of pedantry, I think the "doctor killer" tag applies to any kind of expensive, high-performance kit which, in normal operation, is accessible to the amateur, but can easily require more skill than they have. The very high performance race-replica Sports bikes are a good non-aviation example - i've heard them referred to as "doctor killers"

The "forked-tail doctor killer" is the Bonanza - something to do with the ease of getting into a spiral dive in IMC and the subsequent ease of pulling the wings off getting out of it, if I remember...

:8

[IO540]

What is an "amateur"? Is this context, it is somebody who has had the standard PPL training, plus differences training with an instructor who should be familiar with the type.

There is no proper way to get training for a high perf plane, other than to be extremely lucky and find an instructor who is really current on the type.

This is the problem Cirrus found (in the USA). Now they have more training in place. I think that if their sales were high in the UK (presently they are insignificant) they would have to run their own training with their own instructors. The standard of instruction in the UK as a whole is appalling and no good for people who move up to something like this.

In the USA they have fresh PPLs, coming off the usual C150 spamcan training done by an instructor who has never gone past the crease on the chart, who go out and buy a new plane. It's no wonder a few of them plummet...

I don't think the Bonanza (a 1950s design) is somehow amazingly slippery - any 150kt plane is slippery and will go rapidly out of control in IMC if wings aren't kept level.

I fly a 150kt plane and after several years I am still well cheesed off with the standard of "instruction" I could find at the time.

[Send Clowns]

How much were you willing to pay for instruction? Most PPL instructors will have very little experience themselves at above 120 kts. If you approached a more experienced instructor, it is likely (today) to cost around £70 per hour, but it is a specialised business!

[IO540]

SC

Fair point, but the reality was that I could not find one at any price.

I would guess that total UK annual sales of new 150kt planes is now fewer than the # of your fingers :O

Secondhand will be more of course, but as they get older they get cheaper and the pilots are less likely to want to pay for specialised training. Also a 15-20 year old plane is likely to have very basic avionics which don't (on the face of it, anyway) really need much explanation.

The market isn't there for advanced instruction.

[Send Clowns]

If you know anyone else looking, they should try going to a commercial school. They should be able to offer someone capable. The alternative I would suggest would be to find a CFS-trained (i.e. military) QFI.

[MLS-12D]

I think all new (Cont and Lyc) engines are tested at Factory for one hour at full chat on a dyno. From cold. To eliminate just that.This is good, but really it does nothing to eliminate whatever mistakes may occur in the course of installing an engine in an actual airplane. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip.