To get you updated: the SUST, wich is investigating the accident, will remove the engine until tomorrow and will check what the reason for this failure was. They will keep me informed and I will post the results here.
So starting from tomorrow it will be possible to put the new engine in. So have asked for quotes this morning. And I will get you updated about the outcome.
Have you listened back to the ATC transmissions (LiveATC has Zurich archived)? I could understand people not wanting to though.
Peter do you think this might be related to that oil leak you had?
Peter wrote:
The MTBF of the IO-540/550 class engines is thought to be about 50k hrs.
How many (partial) engine failures do actually make it into the statistics?
If the engine needs to be replaced, then yes it will be probably be reported.
But if the engine can be repaired by the maintenance company and there was no further damage no one will ever know..
I think 50kh figure from Peter refer to complete structural failures? also does that suppose to include any adjustment from the inspection program?
In airliners, the quality is top, some were tested for 500kh on say LDN-NYC cycles (on simulations it is 10Mh) and you get load of them that did come back before their 10kh visit from overspeeding, dirt/fod ingestion and most seems to work well even without any fix
Obviously, not the case for a piston engine: if it runs rough after 5h it will not make 50kh unless you fix it and treat it well ;)
It would seem to be a generally understood number for engine “failures”.
I don’t know what the breakdown is, or to what extent things get under-reported* but if you see a high CHT on a cylinder and land ASAP, a common view is that should not count as a “failure”. The prevailing attitude in the GA scene, especially the turbo GA scene (which is huge in the US) is that cylinders are “consumables”. I had long debates about this on the US Socata group, and people got very defensive about this aspect (i.e. saying firmly that cylinders are consumables and a need for a top overhaul does not equal a premature end of the engine life 
and I never agreed with that way of looking at it).
* under-reporting is a complex issue; for example in-warranty problems are heavily under-reported, for obvious reasons 
@chrisP
he was on departure and afaik this is not recorded by liveATC.
I was on tower and had to hold while it happened, we were informed about the emergency and afterwards it turned out well. During the time just silence on tower.
Peters plane was parked next to ours, unfortunately I had wife and sleepy kid with me so wasn‘t able to stay.
Well done eddsPeter!
parachutesj wrote:
Peters plane was parked next to ours, unfortunately I had wife and sleepy kid with me so wasn‘t able to stay.
Before or after the event? He was parked next to my plane before it.
Yes departure is unfortunately not recorded. And thanks for the confirmation that he never came back to tower because I was wondering about that. eddsPeter wrote:
To get you updated: the SUST, wich is investigating the accident, will remove the engine until tomorrow and will check what the reason for this failure was. They will keep me informed and I will post the results here.
Very good that the SUST is looking into this. So also they will take the engine apart whereafter it should be clear if there is anything salvagable.
What about accessories anyway? Magnetoes, alternators e.t.c.?
eddsPeter wrote:
So starting from tomorrow it will be possible to put the new engine in. So have asked for quotes this morning. And I will get you updated about the outcome.
Yes please do. This is very interesting for all of us.
@ChrisP parachutesj is right, the departure frequency is not recorded, so I had no chance to listen to it. I tried to do so, to check the tone of my voice. It would have been really interesting to check against my normal recordings, especially as my pulse reading of my Garmin Smartwatch shows in the statistics continuously 85-86 ppm in the phase of the emergency, so I suspect the voice was quite normal. Funny enough, that the pulse came up to 95 after the aircraft stands still and to 105 at the time when opening the cooling and having a look on the disaster. To see this really hurts me.
@Peter I don’t think so, because after the problem was fixed I was flying about 15 hours without any loss anymore and even at the time with the problem I was never below 10 quarts.
Peter,
you may try to ask the people from the SUST if they have a recording and if so, if you can listen to it. I guess they will take it anyhow and there is not a lot of reasons why they would refuse you to listen to it if you are interested.
That pulse reading is quite normal under the circumstances I reckon and shows how professionally you mastered the situation. That the pulse will go up afterwards is totally normal as well, some of my American friends call it the “shakes” after a situation mastered and when the adrenaline bleeds off. There is no need to think that this is a sign of weakness, just the opposite. If it had been the other way around, (high pulse during the situation) then there would be lessons to be learnt. Here the only lesson in terms of execution of the flight was that training obviously pais off.
