Engine Failure
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of things I'd like to know about this incident:
1) What caused the EF..did the engine let go or was the engine still fine and it was a fuel issue (carb / throttle linkage etc..)
2) Who was the chick in the video !
I suppose a lot of it depends what you fly. If you "test fly" aeroplanes you have to assume that you will have more failures. If you fly aeroplanes that are home made, you have to assume you will have more failures (someone I know landed short and nosed over in his homebuilt because the throttle jammed at idle on landing and he didn't make the runway).
1) What caused the EF..did the engine let go or was the engine still fine and it was a fuel issue (carb / throttle linkage etc..)
2) Who was the chick in the video !
I suppose a lot of it depends what you fly. If you "test fly" aeroplanes you have to assume that you will have more failures. If you fly aeroplanes that are home made, you have to assume you will have more failures (someone I know landed short and nosed over in his homebuilt because the throttle jammed at idle on landing and he didn't make the runway).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which was my point earlier.
Anyone who is suffering way above the expected rate of engine failures for sure needs to be asking why. There may be good reasons, including flying a "load of junk" for various reasons, including it is your job to do so, but otherwise I would be very suspicious of your operating procedures or your maintenance facility.
Even in the notoriously unreliable DA40s fitted with Theilerts the number of total engine failures in flight are a miniscule percentage of the total hours flown.
If you know the high rate you have experienced is due to such factors at least dont suggest others are temeracious in expecting their experience to be very difference.
Anyone who is suffering way above the expected rate of engine failures for sure needs to be asking why. There may be good reasons, including flying a "load of junk" for various reasons, including it is your job to do so, but otherwise I would be very suspicious of your operating procedures or your maintenance facility.
Even in the notoriously unreliable DA40s fitted with Theilerts the number of total engine failures in flight are a miniscule percentage of the total hours flown.
If you know the high rate you have experienced is due to such factors at least dont suggest others are temeracious in expecting their experience to be very difference.
If you know the high rate you have experienced is due to such factors at least dont suggest others are temeracious in expecting their experience to be very difference.
What IS the "normal" rate of such failures? When I experienced my own, suggestions were "one occurence per 10.000 hours of flight" - sustained by the local pilot of legend, who had some 40.000 hours logged, and did suffer exactly 4 engine failures.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan
I have not suggested in this thread we shouldnt be prepared for an engine failure.
Clearly engines fail, and clearly you might be "unlucky" and have your one in 4,000 hours failure in your first 100 hours.
However, as with so much in aviation, engine failure is just another risk we assess and take a view on.
One view is never fly a single. There are other views. Dont fly over rough terrain, dont fly over a low undercast, dont fly over water, particularly rough water, dont fly up mountain passes especially if there is only one way out and a fire raging at the same end.
In other words there are lots of things many do in a single which are patently unsafe if you take into account that the engine could fail at any moment. You would for example almost certainly never fly on a dark night.
I guess that sums up the problem I had with Guppy's post and some others on here. You can end up fly around being permanently obsessed that the engine is about to fail on you, whereas in fact you would be far better off assessing the risk in the first place and then making certain you had a strategy to deal with the risk whilst being confident you could enact that strategy. Do you drive on the road expecting a blow out at every moment? Do you expect the U/J to collapse on you as you are going around a bend. I have actually had both happen to me, but I didnt expect either. In fact a blow out on a motorway at 70+ mph is probably more dangerous than an engine failure in most situations.
I recall many many years ago a flight with an RAF fast jet pilot, training captain and a string of experiences and flying time very few will ever achieve. We flew along the wet side of some sea cliffs about cliff top high. The view was glorious, the experience brilliant. Fresh out of training I inevitably asked where he would go if the engine suddenly quit. He gave a wry smile, pointed out we would never make it over the cliffs so the choice was easy - we would land straight ahead in the drink. He said, if it happens we will deal with it. In short he had a plan, knew instantly what course of action he would take, knew that there was a higher than average risk running low level along those cliffs, but felt the rewards outweighed the risk. The plan was simple but effective, the risk of losing control of the aircraft almost nil, but more than a degree of injury risk involved with the final ditching.
So in my view I think it is far more important to decide what level of risk we are willing to accept. Having made that decision we should ensure we have a strategy for dealing with an engine failure but beyond that not obssess about something happening that with luck we may never experience.
Realistically the point about being a private pilot and flying 20, 30 or 40 hours a year as many do is that your skill levels will never be comparable with those flying 1,000 hours a year, or having a sim session every six months. I would rather see that pilot ahev the strategy in place to reduce the risk of an engine failure in the first instance, then have a clear understanding of when you are placing yourself in a high risk situation, and, finally, having a strategy for dealing with a failure that is good enough for that pilot's flying skills.
In sailing we teach various techniques for recovering a MOB. A MOB is every bit as life threatening for the man in the water as an engine failure. We teach a recovery that isnt elegant, but will work in most circumstances and for most helms and crews even if their handling skills are somewhat ham fisted. Why? Simply, because it was realised some while back that although there are "better" ways of recovering a MOB they are only "better" in experienced hands and many of those helms and crews involved simply do not have the experience necessary.
and you see for these reasons that is why I think comments such as this are just so far fetched, but often trotted out by pilots whose flying "careers" are at best suspect. There is obviously some thruth in the comment but the fact of the matter is for most low time private pilots the priorities are keep control of the aircraft at all cost, dont try and do anything fancy, make sure the aircraft is as fire and exit safe as possible before you land, and whatever else you do land the aircraft without stalling. If you then just happen to see two trees rushing towards you that have popped up in the middle of your landing area with a gap that is just wide enough to fit the fusealage through and not the wings and you are running straight ahead along the ground and actually have the control of the sliding aircraft and the thought time to do something about it by all means go through the middle - otherwise leave it to Harrison and the special effects guys in the movies. 
Sadly real life and the movies are often some way apart.
I have not suggested in this thread we shouldnt be prepared for an engine failure.
Clearly engines fail, and clearly you might be "unlucky" and have your one in 4,000 hours failure in your first 100 hours.
However, as with so much in aviation, engine failure is just another risk we assess and take a view on.
One view is never fly a single. There are other views. Dont fly over rough terrain, dont fly over a low undercast, dont fly over water, particularly rough water, dont fly up mountain passes especially if there is only one way out and a fire raging at the same end.
In other words there are lots of things many do in a single which are patently unsafe if you take into account that the engine could fail at any moment. You would for example almost certainly never fly on a dark night.
I guess that sums up the problem I had with Guppy's post and some others on here. You can end up fly around being permanently obsessed that the engine is about to fail on you, whereas in fact you would be far better off assessing the risk in the first place and then making certain you had a strategy to deal with the risk whilst being confident you could enact that strategy. Do you drive on the road expecting a blow out at every moment? Do you expect the U/J to collapse on you as you are going around a bend. I have actually had both happen to me, but I didnt expect either. In fact a blow out on a motorway at 70+ mph is probably more dangerous than an engine failure in most situations.
I recall many many years ago a flight with an RAF fast jet pilot, training captain and a string of experiences and flying time very few will ever achieve. We flew along the wet side of some sea cliffs about cliff top high. The view was glorious, the experience brilliant. Fresh out of training I inevitably asked where he would go if the engine suddenly quit. He gave a wry smile, pointed out we would never make it over the cliffs so the choice was easy - we would land straight ahead in the drink. He said, if it happens we will deal with it. In short he had a plan, knew instantly what course of action he would take, knew that there was a higher than average risk running low level along those cliffs, but felt the rewards outweighed the risk. The plan was simple but effective, the risk of losing control of the aircraft almost nil, but more than a degree of injury risk involved with the final ditching.
So in my view I think it is far more important to decide what level of risk we are willing to accept. Having made that decision we should ensure we have a strategy for dealing with an engine failure but beyond that not obssess about something happening that with luck we may never experience.
Realistically the point about being a private pilot and flying 20, 30 or 40 hours a year as many do is that your skill levels will never be comparable with those flying 1,000 hours a year, or having a sim session every six months. I would rather see that pilot ahev the strategy in place to reduce the risk of an engine failure in the first instance, then have a clear understanding of when you are placing yourself in a high risk situation, and, finally, having a strategy for dealing with a failure that is good enough for that pilot's flying skills.
In sailing we teach various techniques for recovering a MOB. A MOB is every bit as life threatening for the man in the water as an engine failure. We teach a recovery that isnt elegant, but will work in most circumstances and for most helms and crews even if their handling skills are somewhat ham fisted. Why? Simply, because it was realised some while back that although there are "better" ways of recovering a MOB they are only "better" in experienced hands and many of those helms and crews involved simply do not have the experience necessary.
Knowing that one must choose to put the fuselage between tree-trunks in order to let the wings take the impact, for example, may save your life
Sadly real life and the movies are often some way apart.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 5th Aug 2010 at 10:54.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Flying is not about when everything is going right but about handling things when they go wrong. I am not just talking about mechanical but equally electrical, weather nav etc.
Full engine failures are probably fairly rare failures which create a problem with the engine are not.
Turbochargers, fuel flow problems etc etc etc. I can remember flying a Seneca Five which was brand new for a non pilot private owner.
The engine had a habit of cutting out with no warning and did so completely in IMC near Dublin. Luckely it restarted.
On landing she ran like a sewing machine, was checked numerous times by the engineers, given a clean bill of health only to play her silly games once again.
Piper had to almost change the whole fuel system to finally sort it!!!
I have had a large piece of exhaust manifold detach We found the piece lying at the bottom of the engine cowl.
2 complete engine failures and numerous engine, electrical, fuel, nav heating etc problems.
My point is to be aware of things going wrong not just engine failures and making the correct decisions to put them right. A crash is usually a culmination of bad descisions or judgements.
To go flying expecting everything to run like clockwork is something which is lovely to have but very often one problem or another will rear its ugly head.
A complete engine failure is just one possible and yes they do happen.
I take your point on accepting risk. Flying at night or over fog banks is a high risk activity especially in a single. Take that risk and its russian roulette!
Pilots like Guppy have a mass of hard experience in the most difficult of circumstances which test man and machine which pilots like you or I dont have so I always lend an ear to what they say
Even if the response can be sharp at times 
Pace
Flying is not about when everything is going right but about handling things when they go wrong. I am not just talking about mechanical but equally electrical, weather nav etc.
Full engine failures are probably fairly rare failures which create a problem with the engine are not.
Turbochargers, fuel flow problems etc etc etc. I can remember flying a Seneca Five which was brand new for a non pilot private owner.
The engine had a habit of cutting out with no warning and did so completely in IMC near Dublin. Luckely it restarted.
On landing she ran like a sewing machine, was checked numerous times by the engineers, given a clean bill of health only to play her silly games once again.
Piper had to almost change the whole fuel system to finally sort it!!!
I have had a large piece of exhaust manifold detach We found the piece lying at the bottom of the engine cowl.
2 complete engine failures and numerous engine, electrical, fuel, nav heating etc problems.
My point is to be aware of things going wrong not just engine failures and making the correct decisions to put them right. A crash is usually a culmination of bad descisions or judgements.
To go flying expecting everything to run like clockwork is something which is lovely to have but very often one problem or another will rear its ugly head.
A complete engine failure is just one possible and yes they do happen.
I take your point on accepting risk. Flying at night or over fog banks is a high risk activity especially in a single. Take that risk and its russian roulette!
Pilots like Guppy have a mass of hard experience in the most difficult of circumstances which test man and machine which pilots like you or I dont have so I always lend an ear to what they say
Even if the response can be sharp at times Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I agree with everything in your post.
One hears of very few engine failures that occur instantly and without any warning or previous neglect.
In fact the engine failure I had almost fell into this category, albeit I suspect that I could have continued on the engine for maybe 10 minutes if it had been a single, before it cooked itself. In that much it certainly did not fall into an instant failure category and there would have been more than enough time to get on the gorund with some power. Clearly yours was similiar in so far as the engine started and continued to run.
I have had a few rough running engines for various reasons and any of these with hindsight could have stopped but I had warning.
Yes, as you say Mr Guppy clearly has a wealth of experience from all over the world in the most testing enviroments so I have no doubt we may have something to learn from his exploits. I shall look forward to reading his future posts.
I agree with everything in your post.
One hears of very few engine failures that occur instantly and without any warning or previous neglect.
In fact the engine failure I had almost fell into this category, albeit I suspect that I could have continued on the engine for maybe 10 minutes if it had been a single, before it cooked itself. In that much it certainly did not fall into an instant failure category and there would have been more than enough time to get on the gorund with some power. Clearly yours was similiar in so far as the engine started and continued to run.
I have had a few rough running engines for various reasons and any of these with hindsight could have stopped but I had warning.
Yes, as you say Mr Guppy clearly has a wealth of experience from all over the world in the most testing enviroments so I have no doubt we may have something to learn from his exploits. I shall look forward to reading his future posts.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine had a habit of cutting out with no warning and did so completely in IMC near Dublin. Luckely it restarted.
What's wrong with a few days in Dublin?
Yes, I know what you meant
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with a few days in Dublin?
Took a twin into Dublin Main first time in 3 years a month back got charges for 240 Euros
Same friendly bunch but yikes!!! a few days there and the bill would be massive.Oh well have to pay a visit to the nice blond lady at weston instead
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately it's the handling charges that make Dublin International so expensive. When we used to be based there, we didn't have any handling charges (and parking was an annual arrangement).
That just left landing fees (well movement charge) which could be as little as €0.50c! depending on the time of the date, and day of the week.
More normal would have been about €9 for a take off and landings, so not expensive. Unfortunately the handling agents know how to charge
On the other hand, as you say, Vanessa is lovely in every sense
That just left landing fees (well movement charge) which could be as little as €0.50c! depending on the time of the date, and day of the week.
More normal would have been about €9 for a take off and landings, so not expensive. Unfortunately the handling agents know how to charge
On the other hand, as you say, Vanessa is lovely in every sense
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I do and it is one of the methods I teach depending if its a high wing or a low wing aircraft I am teaching in.
I have 1000 hours instructing under my belt.
It is one of 4 methods I can teach BTW depending on what the policy of the school is, what aircraft type I am in and also what works for the student.
Personally I don't go for it myself prefering to teach the get it to a base point how ever you like or low key as you would call it. And the the low wing types get taught constant aspect and the high wings get taught a more square base then finals.
I have 1000 hours instructing under my belt.
It is one of 4 methods I can teach BTW depending on what the policy of the school is, what aircraft type I am in and also what works for the student.
Personally I don't go for it myself prefering to teach the get it to a base point how ever you like or low key as you would call it. And the the low wing types get taught constant aspect and the high wings get taught a more square base then finals.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The loss occurred over a dark, remote area.
As I said before you need to review your operating procedures and you would have far less problems.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly NTSB statistics (GA only) show that there are roughly 430 engine failure accidents per year in the US GA fleet of about 150,000. This equates to 0.2%. To normalise that against number of hours flown, it works out at 1 per 50,000 flight hours or something like that. Of those about a quater are "non mechanical" i.e. the likes of fuel or some other reason. About 14% of engine failures result in a fatality (1 per 357000 flight hours).
So I'm guessing that some sorts of flying are more hazardous than others - test flying being one example.
Guppy can you point me to the NTSB report if it was in the USA please? I'd be interested to read it but couldn't find it. Thanks.
So I'm guessing that some sorts of flying are more hazardous than others - test flying being one example.
Guppy can you point me to the NTSB report if it was in the USA please? I'd be interested to read it but couldn't find it. Thanks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
By the time you eliminate failures due to fuel and reasons that could easily have been prevented, partial failures, a raft of failures that could have been forseen and prevented (it never ceases to amaze me how many people are aware of issues that could result in engine problems and yet continue to fly - low oil pressure etc) and failures in higher risk circumstances (test flghts and the like) I am assuming that statistically an engine failure of 1:100,000 hours is made typical. Clearly I am not "typical" but at least stats like that are a comfort.
I am aware that huge numbers of PPLs never even make it to 2,000 hours so the vast majority are going to be very unlucky to see an engine failure in their entire "career" not only as part of the flying they do but also as part of the flying of all of their friends.
By the time you eliminate failures due to fuel and reasons that could easily have been prevented, partial failures, a raft of failures that could have been forseen and prevented (it never ceases to amaze me how many people are aware of issues that could result in engine problems and yet continue to fly - low oil pressure etc) and failures in higher risk circumstances (test flghts and the like) I am assuming that statistically an engine failure of 1:100,000 hours is made typical. Clearly I am not "typical" but at least stats like that are a comfort.
I am aware that huge numbers of PPLs never even make it to 2,000 hours so the vast majority are going to be very unlucky to see an engine failure in their entire "career" not only as part of the flying they do but also as part of the flying of all of their friends.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with the 3 posts above
And if I had 3 engine failures in my TT of 1200hrs I would have given up flying and would now be sitting on Shoreham beach waiting for the wind to get up
and as you suggest this is across a huge spectrum of "maintenance practices" and "operating practices".
If one adopts "best practice" - whatever that means in the individual case but certainly it means not letting your mags go past 500hrs and not running your engine on condition if the compressions suggest the rings are only just hanging in there but are still legal and hey it only uses 1 litre oil per hour which is within Lyco's limits so it must be OK, etc - then your chances will quite obviously be better than the 0.2%.
One improves them further by flying with fuel in the tanks
Sure one needs to be able to do a forced landing but there are time windows when it just isn't possible and you take your chances. A lot of approaches to airports are firmly in that category...... The rest of the time, you are carrying a life raft, and flying high enough to be able to glide somewhere.
And if I had 3 engine failures in my TT of 1200hrs I would have given up flying and would now be sitting on Shoreham beach waiting for the wind to get up
430 engine failure accidents per year in the US GA fleet of about 150,000. This equates to 0.2%.
If one adopts "best practice" - whatever that means in the individual case but certainly it means not letting your mags go past 500hrs and not running your engine on condition if the compressions suggest the rings are only just hanging in there but are still legal and hey it only uses 1 litre oil per hour which is within Lyco's limits so it must be OK, etc - then your chances will quite obviously be better than the 0.2%.
One improves them further by flying with fuel in the tanks
Sure one needs to be able to do a forced landing but there are time windows when it just isn't possible and you take your chances. A lot of approaches to airports are firmly in that category...... The rest of the time, you are carrying a life raft, and flying high enough to be able to glide somewhere.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Inside CAS
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Failures
Fascinating thread. Guppy, your posts really are very interesting to read. You should write a blog or something, if you don't already.
I had my first engine failure, well, loss of power, about two weeks ago. Engine decided to quit in a descent at idle at altitude. Fortunately my hand moved to the fuel pump switch and switched it on before the rest of me had fully realised what had happened. Power restored immediately. Bit of a non-event really, but it was my first taste of a potentially big problem in 335 hours, and it has come at a good time for me. I was beginning to have faith in aero engines!
I flew with a sub 100hr PPL recently. He chose to fly a very long final over water to a runway on the coast. When I asked him why, he replied "my instructor used to do it". When I asked him the obvious potential gotcha, he replied "I don't give a sh1t about the engine failing. If your times up, your times up". He's doing an ATPL, so if you ever hear a bang followed by a similar comment over the PA, you may remember this post.
I had my first engine failure, well, loss of power, about two weeks ago. Engine decided to quit in a descent at idle at altitude. Fortunately my hand moved to the fuel pump switch and switched it on before the rest of me had fully realised what had happened. Power restored immediately. Bit of a non-event really, but it was my first taste of a potentially big problem in 335 hours, and it has come at a good time for me. I was beginning to have faith in aero engines!
I flew with a sub 100hr PPL recently. He chose to fly a very long final over water to a runway on the coast. When I asked him why, he replied "my instructor used to do it". When I asked him the obvious potential gotcha, he replied "I don't give a sh1t about the engine failing. If your times up, your times up". He's doing an ATPL, so if you ever hear a bang followed by a similar comment over the PA, you may remember this post.