AvWeb video - Why Aircraft Engines Quit

Gracias 4 the heads up @Apha_Floor

Really good video. Both your nickname and the end of the video remind us that 85% of accidents are not mechanical related. We (me well included) tend to put what is evidently a disproportionate amount of resources on that 15% (a lot less if we only consider fatal accidents: ie engine failures tend to be 4 times less fatal than the aggregate of the remaining causes, even if they still bend airframes.) I don’t intend to lower my mechanical standard (engineering background after all), but it reminds me I need to keep working on the other 85%.

It also reminds us on how little data we have on GA utilization and failures which is the greatest improvement tool . Despite EU regulation mandating reporting of incidents, GA reporting rate is appallingly low. I don’t blame anyone since the same authorities mandating the reporting are the ones using them to prosecute people…

There is quite some sense of humor in the making (or: makers) of that video.

14:09 “unscheduled hole in engine”. Hell, what a finding, indeed.

And it hurts to see this massive amount of destroyed airplanes and landings gone bad. When an engine quits it does not necessarily have to end in a crash, in particular in cruise. I don’t believe it to be necessary to show all these crashes in such an informative setting. It’s good to realize the points, however, and I will certainly watch the video again and dig deeper into this. (and am happy that my engine is running so smooth :-)

Great video.

I do think regular running of the engine, and being careful after any maintenance, particularly around the engine helps reduce a great deal of the risks, his analysis seems to sort of back that up.

Interesting about less reliability from the Rotax, although it is clearly difficult to get reliable data.

I’d second the advice about doing visual inspections regularly and would also add that ‘listening to your engine’ is in my experience a good thing, it will talk to you and tell you when something is wrong.

I once stupidly reused an O-ring in a fuel fitting and caught it later by seeing fuel stains. It had been leaking in the engine compartment for maybe 10 hrs. Really dumb, but at least I found and fixed it before an in-flight fire. I’m not that excited about planes that don’t allow complete access for engine inspection, both types that I’ve owned have had big cowling doors and while I didn’t dwell on it, it might have caught my attention if they didn’t when considering the type.

I’ve got zillions of miles on motorcycles of all kinds since 1974 and have never been stranded by a motorcycle engine failure. Comparing my experience with that of others and how they operate, I think the difference is remaining connected through all senses, probably motivated by a general interest in machinery as opposed to insight but with a benefit in completing the days trip without issue. Most often you can see something as it begins, and divert before it becomes serious. I’ve carried that over to flying and so far it’s worked for me.

Off_Field wrote:

Interesting about less reliability from the Rotax, although it is clearly difficult to get reliable data.

I thought that interesting too. But unless I’m mistaking Rotax do both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines. I understand 2 stroke engines are far more prone to stoppage. Maybe that’s something to do with the stats?

dublinpilot wrote:

Off_Field wrote: Interesting about less reliability from the Rotax, although it is clearly difficult to get reliable data.

I thought that interesting too. But unless I’m mistaking Rotax do both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines. I understand 2 stroke engines are far more prone to stoppage. Maybe that’s something to do with the stats?

The reason I heard was people treat Rotax engines less favourably (“not real aircraft engines” (c) ), so the engines reciprocate. :)
And are we talking about certifed/non-certified?

Silvaire wrote:

‘listening to your engine’ is in my experience a good thing, it will talk to you and tell you when something is wrong.

You have to be able to listen, you need experience for that.
But if you are a low-hours renter that flies different planes all the time, well…

My instinct says never share a vehicle with anybody else, similar to spouses Assuming we’re not talking about a new or rental car I typically move into using new-to-me vehicles carefully over weeks or months. That’s been my ‘policy’ for the most part over many years, and in fact I’m still learning the nuances of my current plane’s design after 11 years. I bought my first plane before learning to fly and the first lesson was hand propping the engine, which starts you learning about the engine’s character pretty nicely before you’re even flying the thing.

That practice may not be applicable for somebody who is learning to fly for a living in company owned planes, or flying rental planes. That’s not me by choice and in my view owning, controlling and knowing my own stuff is more effective in promoting my own safety than anything else. Rapid assessment of a plane in flight is a skill I don’t have and if I did have it flying unknown planes still wouldn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Good point about two stroke Rotaxes – other than tiny sample size that’s the only thing that seems to make sense.

arj1 wrote:

The reason I heard was people treat Rotax engines less favourably (“not real aircraft engines” (c) ), so the engines reciprocate. :)
And are we talking about certifed/non-certified?

From experience of people flying in the local club, there have been numerous failures of Rotax because of a loss of coolant. Lose a jubilee clip holding the hose in position, your coolant is gone, the engine seizes. Apparently when all coolant is gone, you have less than a minute before the cylinder heads overheat and the engine is toast…..