Some interesting statistics on power loss accidents

Only judging from that article snippet, something’s strange about the numbers. If there are 200-300 power-loss accidents per year and he studied a 14-year period, that would mean he is studying a “population” of 2800 to 4200 accidents. When in the results we read that 128 accidents were caused by fuel starvation, or a total of 264 fuel related accidents, something doesn’t add up. From what I remember, roughly three quarters of accident are actually fuel related, so I would expect to see at least 2100 fuel related accidents, not 264. So how did he choose the accidents to study?

All in all, I don’t find his stats “surprising”, apart from the above mentioned issue.

I think that the fuel issue is why twin accidents are up there with singles. The effect of running out of fuel is the same in both.

I am not saying that it is “easy” to avoid fuel starvation and to guard against contamination, but, for the pilot, it is much, much easier to guard against than mechanical failure.

Surely it is is an argument for installing a fuel flow computer wherever it is feasible?

If you have a G1000, GTN or GNS (and I imagine that the same is true of other navigators) then you can have a constant readout of fuel on arrival, which changes with GS and consumption. Leaving aside leaks, it should pretty much guarantee that you are not going to run out of fuel.

That must be a good investment for everyone, given the statistics?

Excluding weird stuff like fuel system icing which seems pretty rare, fuel starvation is completely avoidable for the pilot if they know their aircraft and plan carefully. Timothy you are right that there are plenty of gadgets to help you if you want them.

While I know some fuel systems are complicated on certain larger piston twins, if you are going to fly them then you should make sure you fully understand how they work.

Much more interesting is the remark at the bottom re. TBO and accidents linked to overhaul.

JasonC wrote:

While I know some fuel systems are complicated on certain larger piston twins, if you are going to fly them then you should make sure you fully understand how they work.

This is why I have spent a lifetime (including my current purchase decision) avoiding Cessna twins. They seem to have fuel systems designed to ensure that people crash into the sea carrying 90 minutes of fuel.

JasonC wrote:

Excluding weird stuff like fuel system icing

Fuel system icing (as I know from long experience) does not tend to take you to the scene of the crash. As soon as you descend into warmer air, the engine(s) pick up, so, apart from the mess on the seats, no harm is done.

EuroFlyer wrote:

Much more interesting is the remark at the bottom re. TBO and accidents linked to overhaul.

That, too, is old news, but is now supported by even more evidence.

One year ago my CAA denied our school to use a Piper 28 in pristine condition (maintained on a local shop and in CAMO environment) for PPL training only because the engine was a little over TBO. So, we could have spent the money on an unnecessary overhaul, been legal and used it for training, with a much higher risk of engine failure for the first couple hundred hours.

Rwy20 wrote:

Only judging from that article snippet, something’s strange about the numbers

Not really. The study looks at “more than 700 power-loss accidents that occurred from 2000 to 2014”, i.e. the study only includes a fraction of the annually 2-300 accidents of this type.