Loss of power in GA planes has one very consistent leading cause: faulty fuel tanks 
that contain no fuel. I believe number two is faulty fuel valves, that are set to empty tanks.
Seemingly so… look at the last 9 accidents (the 2014 accidents) here:
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=SR22&page=2
Following a loss of engine power, the aircraft, a Cirrus SR22, experienced the deployment of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS)
Following a complete loss of engine power, the aircraft, a Cirrus SR22, deployed the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS)
Following a loss of engine power while on approach to Pocatello Regional Airport (KPIH)
The pilot of a Cirrus SR22 GTS G3 pulled the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS , pull #53) after the engine shut down during a night flight near Le Pin (79).
Following a loss of engine power while on approach to runway 29 at Upshur County Regional Airport (W22), Buckhannon, West Virgina, the aircraft, a Cirrus SR22, deployed the CAPS parachute.
Either I’m going mad or the SR22 is very safe now except it’s engine. Maybe CAPS is more useful for engine failures than spin recovery now?
Ah yes faulty fuel tanks. Better call the NTSB quick, they seem to get it wrong every time.
Talking about engine failures. I remember someone telling me that the greatest risk of a failure is when one changes from full power to a lower setting.
I never got into a debate about it with him, but could there be any truth in this, or is this yet another myth? I can understand that changing a power setting suddenly changes forces in various parts of an engine. Then again, any ICE is one big collection of parts that constantly get beaten around by opposite forces, so why would a reduction in power be such a factor? And power changes happen all the time in an automobile engine, and they don’t seem to fail that often, do they?
But if it is true for an aero-engine somehow, then maybe it would be sensible advice to keep the take-off power in until you have reached an altitude at which you can reach a suitable place for an engine-out landing.
Anyone (myth-buster or not) who can provide some insights? Maybe there is some truth in it if you are talking about very rapid power changes? I mean, we all know that machines, like loved ones, deserve careful treatment..
As a Cirrus pilot myself, I’m obviously interested in this.
I see engine failures as falling into the following categories:
1. Running out of fuel. Participation in this type of failure is, IMHO, entirely voluntary for a Cirrus pilot unless he has a fuel leak upstream of the sensor that feeds the fuel totaliser which, in my experience, is accurate to about 1/10 max 2/10 USG in a full tank. I do not believe there has ever been a failure of this type. Sadly, running out of fuel without such a failure is not unknown: in one case I know of, it was actually an instructor!
2. Misfuelling. This has happened when a refueller has seen the “Turbo” decal on a Cirrus while refuelling it unsupervised and mistakenly put Jet A1 in the tanks thinking Turbo=Turbine
3. Maintenance Induced Failure. Far too many failures have happened within 100 hours of major services (at least one CAPS save I know of).
4. Ancillary failures. These involve things like magnetos or air intakes. I have had both happen to me resulting in partial power loss and a relatively uneventful return to my departure airport.
5. Pilot induced failures. These include operating the engine outside normal parameters resulting in destructive events such as detonation and pre-ignition. Whilst this has happened, I’m not aware of an accident yet caused by it.
From this, it seems to me that the majority of failures aren’t actually down to the old technology, although some obviously are, but to a combination of sloppy maintenance, refuelling and pilot error.
Don’t get me wrong: I can’t for the life of me see why we shouldn’t have electronic ignition or more modern designs generally on our engines but I don’t think that that is the only answer by any means.
Obviously the point is that propulsion related accidents are mostly running out of fuel, nothing to do with the plane.
Is there data to support that assertion?
Fuel exhaustion/misfuelling should not be called “engine failure” for statistical purposes.
entirely voluntary for a Cirrus pilot unless he has a fuel leak upstream of the sensor that feeds the fuel totaliser
But, an SR22 also has direct-reading fuel level sensors, I am sure. So you would have to not be watching them.
I can’t for the life of me see why we shouldn’t have electronic ignition or more modern designs generally on our engines but I don’t think that that is the only answer by any means.
I am not convinced electronic ignition would be more reliable. There is very little precedent for competent electronic design in GA, and engine failures due to a loss of the ignition system are very rare.
Are the Cirrus engine failures more frequent than on other types? Engine failures on the certified engines are extremely rare. I have read some stuff suggesting the IO550 they use did have a run of some specific issue but can’t remember the details.
But, an SR22 also has direct-reading fuel level sensors, I am sure. So you would have to not be watching them.
Newer Cirrus aircraft have very accurate fuel gauges but older ones such as my G2 have notoriously poor gauges to the point where I actually never look at mine.
As I said in my earlier post, the totaliser IS very accurate and I rely on that having verified the amount of fuel in the tanks before departure by checking that the tanks are full, to tabs or above tabs.
I have a spreadsheet on my ipad that tracks consumption and balance between the two tanks and calculates range and safety margin. There is also a free iPhone app called Tank 2 that calculates balance between the tanks.
The potential problem I mentioned in my earlier post could arise if there was a leak upstream of the totaliser sensor such that fuel is lost without having passed the sensor. That said, I am not aware of this ever having happened so it remains a theoretical risk.
I am aware of one fuel exhaustion forced landing on a road by an instructor (!) who hadn’t checked take off fuel properly.
Maybe CAPS is more useful for engine failures than spin recovery now?
Who cares about engine failures when you have “CAPS” and insurance ? When an engine failure changes character from something that is life threatening to a lucurative and “nice and different experience”, of course “engine failures” will increase.
