Hi there,
The Rockefeller crash had me on the aviation safety site this morning looking at engine failures (not necessarily what happen in this crash but just doing some reading…). I noticed Cirrus SR22 appear to have improved their accident rate quiet a bit but 5 out of 9 accidents reported so far this year relate to loss of power / engine failure. That’s 56% of accidents for the type caused by a component. IF these could be eliminated, the Cirrus fleet would start to have quiet spectacular safety statistics. I wonder if a will exists to bin the 1960’s junk for something decent up front that doesn’t fail?
DMEarc
Yeah but the 1960es junk is reliable if you fly it no more than an hour per week at a time (preferably at 65% rated power)….
Are these Cirrus figures really right?
Such a high engine failure rate would be an astonishing statistic, which is not matched by any other sector of GA except maybe microlights with 2-stroke engines.
“quiet” and “spectacular” do not go together… 
But as concerns the so called 1960’s junk: I am not defending the stuff, not at all, but “will not fail”, while obviously impossible to meet completely by ANY technology, is not met better in the statistics by anything else. Mostly because everything more recent still has to show its long term reliability.
As for “decent” : that is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty. Not a measurable factor.
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.
