Study of Reciprocating Engine Failures

On Apr 1, 7:52*am, Denny wrote:
It does not add anything to what is known...

Few reviews of existing information ever do.

Yes, sudden, catastrophic, engine failures with no warning happen, but
they are the exception... The vast majority of sick engines complain
loud and long, and it is the dumb **** pilots who sit there - on their
brains - until the poor, gasping, struggling, engine finally comes
apart...

I've heard that statement before - and it does not ring true. Mostly
I hear it from pilots who spend a lot of time banking on the engine -
flying single engine planes at night, in IMC, over water or rought
terrain, at low altitudes, etc. I suppose if you're going to do that,
you have to believe it or have a fairly cavalier attitude about
serious injury or death.

The reality is that the warning signs are often subtle or non-existent
until the last few minutes, the instrumentation for monitoring engine
health and performance is often inadequate, the potential for engine
damage by control misuse high in all but the smallest and least
powerful of the engines, and there are an awful lot of unexplained
failures out there. Most of the people I know who have more than 2000
hours in GA have had at least one engine failure.

In my experience, that 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 number the FAA
provides is right on. It squares with my experience and the
experience of my friends. Also, in my opinion as a practicing
engineer, most of those failures are primarily the result of designs
that are poorly thought out to begin with - perhaps state of the art
by 1940's standards and acceptable by 1960's standards, but now
woefully behind the times. In fact, I would say probably the biggest
factor keeping the failures common is the overly difficult and costly
process that the FAA imposes for adding new technology to these old
beasts.

Michael