30 years part owner at the end of this year, hoping to keep Class2 in December, still lots of flying to do.
It is typical in humans to overestimate small risks. When you look at the FAA data, the risk of a fatal accident in SEP flying is incredibly low. Sure, not as low as in CAT but still very low.
cessnatraveller wrote:
What was the reason for the engine failure in LSZH? Are we sure the mixture was full rich on takeoff? Or was the pilots‘ stress level at a busy international airport higher than normal and he omitted this little point on the checklist leading to insufficient fuel flow, much higher temperatures and detonation?
unknown at this point, but the engine failed quite badly. But what you suggest has to do with the fact, that in 2019 we are still working like a 1930 pilot had fiddling with mixture prop and throttle. Commercial engines have long hone FADEC, Automixture is something which goes back to the 1960ties as well but neither conti nor lyco have ever implemented it with their enignes, why?
Actually, what people who know about engines think is that the Zurich one looks like either a failed crankshaft or a failed connecting rod. In both cases, quality or metal fatigue issues may well play into it. But as the SUST is doing an investigation (which I think is a very good idea) we shall know in due course. I would be careful with suggesting pilot error until proven otherwise though.
In any case, the Commanche at St. Johns, also there the jury is still out what caused it but it was sudden and catastrophic after a 10 hour flight. 30 minutes before and we might never have heard the story.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So far, I’ve known close to100 people who lost their lifes to aviation,
With respect,MD, I find that very hard to believe.
JasonC wrote:
t is typical in humans to overestimate small risks. When you look at the FAA data, the risk of a fatal accident in SEP flying is incredibly low.
Well, it is difficult to cope with the loss of so many experienced pilots who, if experience counts, knew much more than oneself. This is a huge confidence killer.
The 2nd one is that following the Boeing Max certification scandal and disaster, anything the FAA has certified today is in question in my view. ALL airplane designs are at least 40-70 years old, because certification of a new airframe is so costly, it has bancrupted everyone wo recently tried it. So they ride on dead horse airframes just to build up on an existing certificate.The result is known. Personally, I think we don’t even begin to understand the implications. Many will once the class action lawsuits start rolling and for once, I am all for it. And seeing how the FAA has failed totally in the certification of a 200 seat airliner, who really has any confidence that they really do something substantial when new engine or airframe variant based on 70 year old designs are certified?
But they have the cheek bancrupting basically everyone who tries to certify something new. Yea right.Is this inspiring confidence? Or is this the explanation why airplane engines pretty much still are the same as they were when the first of our legacy airframes came out? I think it is. Maybe we really need to re-think this and stop this dead horse certifications in order to finally get airframes which correspond to todays state of the art.
My confidence in these engines has quite evaporated given the recent cases.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, it is difficult to cope with the loss of so many experienced pilots who, if experience counts, knew much more than oneself. This is a huge confidence killer.
You seem to equate high hours with high skill. It is clear that is not the case. Also, using Boeing Max as a reason to lose confidence in all FAA certifications that have often millions of hours is just being paranoid.
It is always difficult when we know someone who dies in any sphere.
While it is clear that piston engines are more risky than turbines, they are also incredibly well tested and the failure rate is very low. I think you are being overly affected by a couple of accidents on here.
I agree with Jason. In the past ten years I have seen only nine GA accidents, all off-airport. Of these only five resulted in destruction of the aircraft and not a single one involved any injury – not a bruise, not a scratch.
So, compared to cycling or skiing, or rugby (unless you’re in a team like Scotland which doesn’t get to play much), flying seems a pretty safe pass-time as long as you stay away from airports.
The misunderstood issue with GA pistons so not so much metal fatigue, it is their requirement for maintenance. Most design flaws and metal issues have been worked out in engines built in the past 10 years. However, as the old air cooled engine is designed as a ‘wear item’, they require an extraordinary level of maintenance. Each task increases the risk. Lead contributes greatly to engine failures – without lead, maintenance would be reduced and therefore accidents.
The rest of the failures are fuel and spark not getting to the cylinder. Flying without an engine monitor is arguably something we should relegate to the past.
Maybe you can change your flying ? If the IR is out of the window and possible engine failures haunt you then you could consider stepping into the
ULM-business. Those new designs look very cool and most of them pack a chute.
airways wrote:
you could consider stepping into the
ULM-business.
LOL, well, unfortunately I myself am not exactly UL. Therefore I do exceed the payload most of these things have even by sitting ino it, without a gram of fuel. Most of those I have seen in Friedrichshafen last year were at best single seaters with 120-140 kg payload including fuel…
