Engine Failure

[IO540]

Better to never leave the UK mainland then.

What was the diagnosis? If it was the engine driven fuel pump, how many hours did it fail at?

[XX621]

IO540: Not sure how many the hours the engine pump specifcally has, the engine only has 520 hours since last overhaul - but is running on condition due calendar time. Interestingly, I double checked the POH which states fuel pump on for "Descent" so have amended my checks accordingly of course, but it shouldn't cut at idle with pump off. Only a matter of time before someone forgets the pump and powers down to idle on finals....

Absolutely no problems at any other power setting, it's a IO360-D with CSU prop by the way.

Engineers suspected fouled plugs and nozzles...so had them cleaned, but problem remains, although not as easy to reproduce on the ground as before.

[Fuji Abound]

but problem remains, although not as easy to reproduce on the ground as before.

What problem remains? The engine quitting on you?

Have you looked in the log book to see if the engine driven fuel pump was replaced overhauled when the engine was overhauled. When was the electric pump overhauled? It will all be in the engine log book.

Why do you continue to fly an aircraft with a known problem?

I am not trying to be awkward, but this was my very point earlier, if you ask for trouble you bet you will find it.

FWIW I would no more test an aircraft's pressurisation at night over hostile terrain than I would continue to fly an aircraft with a known problem that could result in the engine quitting. The reason you have an electric pump is so, when the mechanical pump quits, you have a backup. If you know or suspect the mechanical pump could be faulty you have just defeated the intention of the designer in specifying a backup electric pump.

It flies

Please save us. I dont think you will get anything either new or which could not be found from doing a little research on Google.

[IO540]

If the engine driven fuel pump is not 100% then you could be looking at a big problem. It will be either a diaphragm pump or a gear pump, and a suspected fault in either of those is an immediate grounding and a stripdown of the pump. Plus a check of the oil filter etc for bits of metal.

[XX621]

Fuji: Calm down I found your post almost bit accusatory to be honest! I'm not some dodgy flyboy wideboy flying a dodgy plane around looking for trouble! I have two young kids for starters!

Lets not turn this into a slanging match, did I say I was flying the aircraft around knowing the engine pump (if it is that) was not 100%?

I would very much welcome any advice you and IO have to offer, seriously...perhaps if I PM you all the details? I'm interfacing with two AMOs to get the bottom of the problem, but its a tightrope between rational problem identification and repair and being ripped off chasing expensive geese. As I'm sure you both have experience of!

[Fuji Abound]

XX621

Sorry, I didnt mean to imply you were and was generally concerned that you said the problem was not so easy to reproduce on the ground from which I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you had reproduced the problem in the air.

You are welcome to PM me and I will offer any help I can with pleasure.

[Fuji Abound]

Do you suppose the failure wouldn't have occurred if it had been over a deeply populated, urban area, and in the daylight? How idiotic.

So lets just be clear. You flight tested a 421 at night over remote terrain after an annual inspection knowing there had been problems with the pressurisation system and, at the same time, intended to give instructional training to a pilot who had never flown the aircraft before at night and during a flight test. I would very much like to see that NTSB report - perhaps you would like to provide the link?

As I said before look for trouble, and sure as hell you will find it - and you did . I dont need 100,000 or even 500 hours to arrive at that conclusion.

As to your repeated references to your own vast experience you may well wish to review the Tenerife KLM accident and take care to make sure your experience has not made you infallible.

Anyway rather than beat about the bush you have probably guessed I think you are a troll, and if you are not, well, I think you look for trouble, so dont worry I will not be flying with you any time soon.

I have genuinely enjoyed the stories however, and I shall look forward to some more, please keep them coming.

[IO540]

I am 50/50 on whether Guppy is a very experienced FSX pilot, or a real pilot. If you read pprune for enough years, you will be able to deliver all the right stories. My main PPL instructor was a brilliant story teller, but I did eventually suss that he was a total fake (fake ATPL, fake IR, fake type ratings in a TBM and a PC12, fake TBM TRI/TRE, countless fake trips across the world in PA46s, etc). He eventually (and suddenly) vanished, following some "happenings" at the school where he was a CFI. He was a real CFI though - but a UK "CFI" is a fake qualification anyway; a one man band running a school out of a shed is automatically a "CFI" of that school.

But he was a good instructor. The best instructor I ever had (at the PPL level). He taught me what the trim wheel does (it sets the speed; all the engine does is control the rate of climb - how many pilots actually know that?) and that watching the speedo on final is going to dramatically improve one's life expectancy. I just had to quietly smile when he said that if too many planes tune into a VOR (yes I don't mean a DME) it stops working.

Guppy is quite possibly real, but I think his vast range of exploits has gone to his head. He would more effectively pass on his wisdom if he was less patronising. The way he is going he should expect a job offer from the CAA any time soon. As a consolation prize he could have a retirement job editing GASIL/GASCO

XX621 - feel free to email me if you want to pass anything by me. I don't know the IO360 but I might give you some ideas, or ask around people who might know. Having done the rounds of engine stuff a bit, in the UK, I now think there is precious sod all engine debugging expertise over here. I was once ripped off 1400 euros (AOG) for a replacement starter motor (listed at US$400 but that's a side issue) but the company, JAR145 et cetc etc with EASA Design Authority etc etc etc did not know enough to determine it was a duff battery. Now, I carry a voltmeter in my toolbox A friend with a turbo engine spent ~6 months messing around with everybody and their dog trying to find out what was wrong with the waste gate controller; I think it was by luck that it was finally fixed.

But if I had an unexplained stoppage, apparently cured by the electric pump, I would not fly until the whole fuel system is stripped and inspected, and I mean all the pipes, and tanks. After all, they still haven't actually found what did in BA038

If you have the EDM700 data, does it show the stoppage, as a loss of EGTs? Once, in the descent into Antwerp, ~ 8000ft, heavily leaned, I had a "hesitation" for a few secs showing itself as a sudden loss of IAS; I went to max power and it went away. The EGTs always looked fine. Upon landing, my friend and I took the cowlings off and checked everything visually, check for fuel leaks (with the pump running), etc. Found nothing. Did extra long power checks, took off and climbed at Vx into strong headwind, but it never happened again. The EDM data showed nothing! Certainly no interruption of combustion (unless it was only seconds). I now think it may have been a brief downdraught and with the autopilot holding a constant -VS, given the very low power setting that would have done it. So I think it was my imagination but it was a little worrying at the time.

[XX621]

Fuji/IO540 - thanks very much. I will PM you both giving full details. I could use a second opinion on things.

[IO540]

Mr Guppy - still waiting for the NTSB report URL.

[Fuji Abound]

Over time, perhaps a couple of decades, the tension on the plexiglass combined with the flexing during pressurization in exactly the right manner to cause the windscreen to fail.

Hmm so lets see no NTSB report of what after all amounts to a very serious failure, no incident report to enable others to be aware of the problem, no AD to give ntoice to other engineers that the aircraft could have a serious issue. Infact it would seem nothing to avert perhaps another crew killing themselves and their passengers when suffering the same failure at FL285. Notwithstanding the FAA saw fit to review the incident and commend the crew.

It is a great story however.

[24Carrot]

I'll be waiting for your book of memoirs. Those whopping 1,200 hours of spellbinding experience will make for magical reading.

As it happens the bits I've read about, (through another forum), make very good reading.

[IO540]

was not a NTSB reportable event

Yeah, right, a big piece comes off a 421 (a little homebuilt machine operated under the Experimantal regime, never used for anything of relevance like paying passenger carriage; not even approved for IFR) sucking off a piece of the instrument panel with it, and no SB, no AD... nuffink.

Makes one look up in awe at the wonder boys (and girls, too) inside our very own EASA, who rightly regard the FAA, and all those who fly under it (myself included) as a load of cowboys.

Quite right too (spoken with the correct RAF public school accent).

I am off to log my flight of this morning - a 3.5 minute taxi to the pumps and a 3.5 minute taxi back to parking. It was for the purpose of a flight, so I can log it (the flight was cancelled due to cloud at 2000ft). I need to log everything I can get my hands on. One day I might even make 5 figures and then I might feature in one of Mr Guppy's postings.

[englishal]

What aspect of the event do you find to be reportable under NTSB 830?

That all depends on whether it were a Civil aircraft or Public aircraft. If it were civil, of course it would be reportable. If Public (i.e. us government) then depending on certain conditions, it wouldn't be reportable.

Not knowing who operated the aeroplane, we can't possibly tell if it was reportable.

(a) Initial notification and later reporting of aircraft incidents and accidents and certain other occurrences in the operation of aircraft, wherever they occur, when they involve civil aircraft of the United States; when they involve certain public aircraft, as specified in this part, wherever they occur; and when they involve foreign civil aircraft where the events occur in the United States, its territories, or its possessions.

Public aircraft means an aircraft used only for the United States Government, or an aircraft owned and operated (except for commercial purposes) or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by a government other than the United States Government, including a State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of that government. “Public aircraft” does not include a government-owned aircraft transporting property for commercial purposes and does not include a government-owned aircraft transporting passengers other than: transporting (for other than commercial purposes) crewmembers or other persons aboard the aircraft whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management; or transporting (for other than commercial purposes) persons aboard the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States......

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office1 when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Flying is all about managing risks. Obviously there is a risk that the engine in a single engine aircraft could suddenly stop, but there are also many other risks during a typical flight. The secret is of course to reduce the risks as far as practicable. To do this one must first understand both the probability of an adverse occurance and its consequence. IMO ab initio flight training does not do a very good job in this area. It assigns a far higher probability to the engine failure scenario than is warrented , but more critically allmost all the training has to do with actions after the engine failures. If you examine the actual engine failure statistics you will find that over 80% of the light aircraft engine failures were directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

The least likely event is having a engine which had a normal run up
is showing normal engines guage indications, has sufficent uncontaminated fuel supply from a a properly selected tank, and is not showing signs of carb ice ...... just suddenly stop. Or even more simply if you want to greatly reduced the risk of engine failure do a few sinple things on every flight

Before flying

1) make sure there is no water in the fuel

2) do not take off if the runup is abnormal

and, In flight

1) plan every flight with at least an hour of fuel in reserve using book fuel flows plus 10 %

2) monitor your engine instruments regularly thoughout the flight and be especially vigilent for the signs that carb ice is forming.

If you do these things and are flying one of the simpler trainers or tourers the chance you will experience an engine failure in your PPL flying lifetime is effectively zero.

If you are going to have a non fatal accident it will most likely be a loss of control on takeoff or landing caused by skills fade, and if you are going to have a fatal accident it will probably be due to flying in poor weather.

So looking at it from a purely statistical approach it would seem the best way to reduce the risk of you having an accident is to regularly practice takeoff and landings to maintain your aircraft control skills and not to push the weather. While you do not want to ignore the possibility of an engine failure especially the most dangerous scenario, an engine failure right after takeoff, you also IMO should not ascribe more importance to this particualar emergency than it warrents.

[IO540]

Getting more and more vague, one notices...

Very good.

[englishal]

it wasn't considered "substantial damage for the purposes of NTSB 830, and wasn't an accident

Ah ok, I see....I just would have thought that something like a large hole and bits dangling out of the aeroplane would have been of interest to the NTSB in case it happened to some other poor bugger.

[IO540]

The problem with posting NTSB or whatever reports is that they contain the tail number, which one can look up on the FAA database (not to mention google) and one thing leads to another.... all very undesirable

[mcgoo]

You are only required to report the following under NTSB 830 for aircraft under 12,500lbs:

1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight; (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.

[douglas.lindsay]

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.

Apologies for referring so far back (this thread has been growing fast), but here's a question I was pondering the other day while reading "The Killing Zone"... Presumably not every engine failure leads to an accident, as I assume all that PFL training I've done (and I like to practice it every so often, even now that I'm licensed to kill myself ) gives me half a chance of actually landing the plane without damage.

So I'm guessing that actual incidences of engine failure are quite a bit higher than that... anybody care to guess how frequent?