Sheepskin seat covers save life.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:52 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message
...


I always get a kick out of the FAA determinations: the pilots failure to
keep maintain flight after wing fell off...

Every accident is the pilot's fault. But sometimes, the pilot's only
mistake was getting out of bed that morning... :-)

I've noticed that too. About 10 years back they were very anti-pilot,
but now they are a bit more realistic. Did some old crust retire?

I'm currently engaged in a statistical analysis of accidents, and have read
about 600 reports in the last several weeks. You still see the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault. The vast majority of those cases involve engine failure
(in fact, I don't recall seeing cases that *didn't*).

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I'm currently engaged in a statistical analysis of accidents, and have read
about 600 reports in the last several weeks. You still see the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault. The vast majority of those cases involve engine failure
(in fact, I don't recall seeing cases that *didn't*).

Talking from experience, an engine failure doesn't mean accident.

I would have to say, it depends WHEN the engine fails as to whether it
be pilot fault / error or mechanical. In my opinion, in most cases,
engine failure accidents should be attributed to pilot error if THEY
FAILED TO FLY THE PLANE during the crisis.

Mine happened at 3,500 feet 15 miles from the uncontrolled airport, and
I didn't even make "the news" even with me declaring an emergency on
121.5.

Now, had the engine failed at 10 or 15 feet above the runway on my take
off at my destination airport, I probably would make front page news,
and doubt that it be attributed to pilot error (providing I followed the
preflight checklist or do something stupid like not adhere to weight and
balance or density altitude considerations) , since 50 to 60 foot trees
are at the end of the runway. Runway is 2999 foot long.

So, when you study the accident reports, I would be interested at what
phase of the flight did the engine fail. Was it on take off, climb out,
level flight, descent or landing phases?
For take off, and climb out, you really don't get much opportunity to
select an alternate emergency landing spot especially at an airport you
never have been to.

Successful landings generally don't even make an incident as in my
case. I was expecting "call the tower" routine after landing. I only
had to call Flight Services to let them know I was on the ground safely,
and have them report back to New Orleans Approach that I was OK.

Successful off field landings are "incidents". I hope you include those
in your study.

For level flight, descent and landing, you do get more opportunity to
select a landing spot.

So, in a nutshell, with the proper training, an engine failure can be a
non event providing you have the ample time to make appropriate
decisions. 10 feet above the ground on climb out and the fan quits,
sure is not ample time to make a quick decision to land. You fly
straight and land on what ever is in front of you. 3,500 feet, you have
ample time to make a successful landing (unless you are over some G-d
aweful mountain terrain or ocean waters).

I really attribute my outcome to the quality training I received from my
instructor. Every lesson I had from hour three to my checkride, he gave
me a what if scenario for emergencies. The most important thing I
remember the most is "FLY THE AIRPLANE" during my own "crisis".

Just my 3 pennies for what it is worth.

Allen
(who lives in the flatlands of the deep south)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:26:21 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I'm currently engaged in a statistical analysis of accidents, and have read
about 600 reports in the last several weeks. You still see the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault. The vast majority of those cases involve engine failure
(in fact, I don't recall seeing cases that *didn't*).

Talking from experience, an engine failure doesn't mean accident.

Same as my experience... ended up gliding over downtown, on approach, with
the prop stopped. I'm analyzing the accidents included in the NTSB
accident database, which does not include incidents.

The FAA inspection after an accident is cursory. I respect the FAA guys
who do the initial investigation, but they do not perform the same level of
investigation that the NTSB does. In one case, the FAA inspector gave me a
totally wrong cause for the accident. It took metallurgical testing (which
the FAA doesn't do) to establish what had actually happened.

I would have to say, it depends WHEN the engine fails as to whether it
be pilot fault / error or mechanical. In my opinion, in most cases,
engine failure accidents should be attributed to pilot error if THEY
FAILED TO FLY THE PLANE during the crisis.

All of them flew the plane. Some just didn't land without damage. I'm not
going to sit in my comfy office chair and say, "This guy four years ago
should have been able to land that plane safely...."

Take two brand-new 172s at identical locations. Have both engines suffer
connecting rod failures. Have both pilots wearing parachutes.

Pilot #1 says, "This sucks," and bails out. The plane crashes and is
totally destroyed.

Pilot #2 says, "I think I can land in that opening in the trees." Luck
isn't with him that day, and he lands a bit long and rolls the plane into
the trees. He's uninjured, but dings a wing.

Probable NTSB rulings:

Case 1: Probable cause was the failure of the connecting rod.
Case 2: Pilot error, with failure of the connecting rod as a factor.

So, when you study the accident reports, I would be interested at what
phase of the flight did the engine fail. Was it on take off, climb out,
level flight, descent or landing phases?

For take off, and climb out, you really don't get much opportunity to
select an alternate emergency landing spot especially at an airport you
never have been to.

My study is only peripherally touching on pilot error. I'm after data on
hardware failures. I have a checkoff box for pilot error, with a few other
factors available, but my primary interest is in the accidents involving
failure of some component of the aircraft.

In my analysis, I would list both Case 1 and Case 2 above as a "Loss of
Power (Engine Internal)."

Successful landings generally don't even make an incident as in my
case. I was expecting "call the tower" routine after landing. I only
had to call Flight Services to let them know I was on the ground safely,
and have them report back to New Orleans Approach that I was OK.

The reportability criteria for aircraft accidents and incidents is
contained in NTSB Part 830. I didn't report my engine failure; no damage,
no injuries. I did have a thing or two to say to the FBO who sold me
contaminated fuel. :-)

Successful off field landings are "incidents". I hope you include those
in your study.

I'm using the NTSB accident reports, which don't include incidents unless
they are later upgraded to accidents.

So, in a nutshell, with the proper training, an engine failure can be a
non event providing you have the ample time to make appropriate
decisions.

Sorry, I believe that's oversimplified. All forced landings take some
element of luck. Two pilots pick different pastures that look the same
from 5,000 feet. Both have 8" tall grass, but one field is studded with old
railroad ties that you can't see until you get on short final. Time is
only one factor. Add a howling crosswind, wires you can't see until you
descend, a panicking passenger, and unanticipated better glide ratio
because of a stopped prop, and/or a tractor that pulls onto the field as
you're on short final. As Ernie Gann said, "Fate is the Hunter". There
are a lot of good pilots in graveyards.

I think most engine-failure cases are *survivable* (and, actually, most are
survived). But I don't fault someone who damages an airplane in a forced
landing. The primary goal in an emergency is the saving of the lives
involved. and most pilots appear to be pretty good at that.

For instance, in the year 2000, about 148 Cessna 172s had accidents, of
which 18 resulted in at least one fatality. Of the fatal crashes, none
involved a loss of engine power. Eight involved the pilot losing control
(typically stall/spin accident), two were VFR to IFR cases, four density
altitude, two midair, etc.

Allen
(who lives in the flatlands of the deep south)

Ron Wanttaja
(who learned to fly the flatlands of North Dakota, but now flies over the
mountains, forests, bays, and sounds of western Washington state.)

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Hi Ron,

You raise some interesting points.

snip

All of them flew the plane. Some just didn't land without damage. I'm not
going to sit in my comfy office chair and say, "This guy four years ago
should have been able to land that plane safely...."

I 100 percent agree, Monday morning quarterbacking is much easier then
in the thick of things. So for us to make judgement is easier said then
done....

Take two brand-new 172s at identical locations. Have both engines suffer
connecting rod failures. Have both pilots wearing parachutes.

Pilot #1 says, "This sucks," and bails out. The plane crashes and is
totally destroyed.

Pilot #2 says, "I think I can land in that opening in the trees." Luck
isn't with him that day, and he lands a bit long and rolls the plane into
the trees. He's uninjured, but dings a wing.

Probable NTSB rulings:

Case 1: Probable cause was the failure of the connecting rod.
Case 2: Pilot error, with failure of the connecting rod as a factor.

I actually agree with your probable NTSB rulings. The error you point
out is that the pilot dinged the wing, not the engine failure. I don't
say it's "right" to fault the pilot, but it was the pilot's decision to
bring it back to terra firma and it was his decision that caused the
wing to get dinged. The strange part about what you bring up, is that
in case two, the pilot will suffer more "legal consequences" then the
pilot in case one, which is mucho backwards.

In my analysis, I would list both Case 1 and Case 2 above as a "Loss of
Power (Engine Internal).

Well, the "loss of power" was what caused the pilot to prematurely come
down and land, The engine failure was not the direct the cause of the
crash in either situation. Your case #2 substantiates this. Go back to
my take off example, and yes, I would agree with you that the crash
cause would be engine failure. At that phase of flight, the pilot has
no alternatives.

The reportability criteria for aircraft accidents and incidents is
contained in NTSB Part 830. I didn't report my engine failure; no damage,
no injuries. I did have a thing or two to say to the FBO who sold me
contaminated fuel. :-)

And this did not show up on your preflight??? I don't know about
others, but I sump everytime I get topped off. Even on layover flights.

Sorry, I believe that's oversimplified. All forced landings take some
element of luck. Two pilots pick different pastures that look the same
from 5,000 feet. Both have 8" tall grass, but one field is studded with old
railroad ties that you can't see until you get on short final. Time is
only one factor. Add a howling crosswind, wires you can't see until you
descend, a panicking passenger, and unanticipated better glide ratio
because of a stopped prop, and/or a tractor that pulls onto the field as
you're on short final. As Ernie Gann said, "Fate is the Hunter". There
are a lot of good pilots in graveyards.

I simplify it, but I doubt the NTSB would say pilot error for landing in
a field in your example. If you have come across a report that
"exaggerated", I would love to see it. I think there is some
reasonability in their determinations.

Allen

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:06:41 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The reportability criteria for aircraft accidents and incidents is
contained in NTSB Part 830. I didn't report my engine failure; no damage,
no injuries. I did have a thing or two to say to the FBO who sold me
contaminated fuel. :-)

And this did not show up on your preflight??? I don't know about
others, but I sump everytime I get topped off. Even on layover flights.

There was no water separation in the fuel when I checked the sumps. There
were tiny bubbles in the sample, but they looked like air. They did not
separate out from the fuel during the time I was sitting on the
ground...every sample came up with red fuel, and little tiny bubbles
scattered through it, neither rising nor falling.

I walked into the FBO with my sample and asked my CFI about it. He'd never
seen the phenomena before. Other pilots in the lounge looked at it, and
had never seen the effect. We'd had heavy rain the night before. I asked
the FBO manager whether that could be water in the fuel, and he insisted
that their fuel tanks' water detector would shut off the fuel if water was
in the gas

In any case, two airplanes had already filled at the same tanks that day
with no reported trouble. Everyone gave the fuel sample a clean bill of
health, including my CFI.

But...the FBO's fuel-tank caps were in shallow pits in the tarmac. The
heavy rain had filled the pits...and the caps had leaky gaskets and let the
water drain into the tank. The fuel-water separator had only partially
worked...I had noticed the fuel had dispensed slowly, but it hadn't shut it
off completely. What it *had* done was place the water in suspension in
the fuel...that's what the bubbles were. There wasn't any water in the
sumps, because it hadn't had a chance to separate yet.

I figure the vibration of the engine hastened the precipitation. About
five minutes after takeoff, the engine started getting rough. I firewalled
it to gain as much altitude as I could and headed towards a nearby airport.
the engine finally died completely about 3/4 mile out from the
airport...but by that time, I had about 1500 feet.

I had a choice between flying directly to the airport and landing downwind,
or trying to circle the field to land upwind. I elected to take the
downwind landing, but I had a ton of altitude to get rid of and a fairly
short distance to do it.

BTW, did I mention my airspeed indicator was ALSO inop...due to water in
the pitot line?

After I landed, I immediately checked the sumps. All I got was scummy pond
water. I pelted for the office to call the other airport's FBO and warn
them. Then I spent about 45 minutes draining water out of my tanks. After
the first five or ten sampler-loads, I started draining it directly into an
empty oil can. From the number of times I filled those quart cans, I
figure there was about two gallons of water in each of my 13-gallon tanks.

While I was doing this, a guy came over and asked what I was doing. I
filled a sampler and showed it to him. He said, "Yeah, I use auto fuel,
too." The sample mimicked the way 80-octane and auto fuel would mix and
turn clear.

The two airplanes that had filled before me? The first one to fill that
day had flown to another nearby airport. They got hold of him, and he
checked his tanks. He had just a cup of water in his fuel.

The one that filled up second? He had flown in, filled, and parked. They
got about six gallons of water out of his tanks.

Did I make a mistake? Yep. Had I crunched it, I would have added an "X"
to the "Improper Preflight" column in my accident database. The NTSB
probably would have castigated me for my decision to do the deadstick
landing downwind, too. As it is, it makes a good hangar story (and for
that matter, a good article in FLYING magazine...May 1987).

But I had luck on my side, that day. Proximity to an airport, and a bunch
of recent practice in the glide-path control techniques described in "Stick
and Rudder." Had that 1500 feet to kill in three-quarters of a mile. Full
flaps, nose well up with the stall horn nickering. Prop stopped almost
immediately. Didn't even have to slip.

I was lucky...but it did leave me with plenty of sympathy for those who
DON'T have my luck.

I simplify it, but I doubt the NTSB would say pilot error for landing in
a field in your example. If you have come across a report that
"exaggerated", I would love to see it. I think there is some
reasonability in their determinations.

After the hundreds of reports I read, they all start to blur together. I
do remember at least one where the investigator said something like "pilot
should have picked the next field over." I tend to remember the REALLY
memorable cases, like the Mooney that had its entire tail section fall off
on final due to dry rot (the pilot went ahead and landed it...no injuries)
or the toxicologic summary of what was in the pilot's blood and organs in
one particular accident (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, prozac, a whole
pharmacopeia).

In the vast majority of cases, I see nothing in the described situation
that makes me argue when the NTSB attributes the accident to pilot error.
Of those 172 accidents in 2000, over 60% were due to the pilot incorrectly
controlling the aircraft or misjudging his flight path. That 60% doesn't
include an additional 5% that ran out of fuel, or the 2% that flew VFR into
IFR conditions, or several other causes that are related to bad judgment on
behalf of the PIC.

However, there's a danger in that. Years ago, I read a report that
revealed that 95% of the people surveyed considered themselves
above-average drivers. I don't doubt the numbers are similar for pilots.

Thus enters an insidious danger in "Pilot Error" accident reporting:
People tell themselves, "If the cause was pilot error, I don't have to
worry about it because I'm a better pilot than that guy was."

We tend to attribute those accidents to bad piloting skills or poor
decision making by some "lesser" pilot. "He should have known better."
"How can someone make such an idiotic mistake?" Tom Wolfe wrote about this
attitude in "The Right Stuff." And I think it's one we're still fighting
today.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

BTW, did I mention my airspeed indicator was ALSO inop...due to water in
the pitot line?

Hi Ron,

Sounds like you had a run of bad luck with the water.

How in the world did water get in your pitot line? Was your drain hole
blocked? High winds blowing straight down the pitot tube?

I myself have found rain in the static ports, and used a 10wD 40 straw
to clear it, but never water in the pitot tube. I will now start
checking the drain hole in my preflight. I never thought to before this
conversation, I always peer inside the tube to insure no insect nests (I
put a cover on anyway, but still check.) I take that word "assume" very
seriously.

Allen

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:09:10 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

Sounds like you had a run of bad luck with the water.

How in the world did water get in your pitot line? Was your drain hole
blocked? High winds blowing straight down the pitot tube?

I live in the Seattle area. 'Nuff said. :-)

Seriously, it had to be a combination of rain with strong winds, since I
had one of those little "blowback" hinged pitot tube covers on my plane.
My tiedown spot faced south, and that's the direction the storm winds come
from around here.

Still, it's a tiny little hole...hard to believe that water could find and
enter it. It happened a couple of times in my ownership of the plane.
There was a junction for the pilot line just inboard of the tube, behind an
inspection panel in the bottom of the wing. I'd open the panel, disconnect
the line, blow on the end of the tube, and be rewarded with a "splut!"
sound as water shot from the open end of the line.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:09:10 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

Sounds like you had a run of bad luck with the water.

How in the world did water get in your pitot line? Was your drain hole
blocked? High winds blowing straight down the pitot tube?

I live in the Seattle area. 'Nuff said. :-)

Seriously, it had to be a combination of rain with strong winds, since I
had one of those little "blowback" hinged pitot tube covers on my plane.
My tiedown spot faced south, and that's the direction the storm winds come
from around here.

Still, it's a tiny little hole...hard to believe that water could find and
enter it. It happened a couple of times in my ownership of the plane.
There was a junction for the pilot line just inboard of the tube, behind
an
inspection panel in the bottom of the wing. I'd open the panel,
disconnect
the line, blow on the end of the tube, and be rewarded with a "splut!"
sound as water shot from the open end of the line.

Ron Wanttaja

Interesting, Ron. I had a bug jammed in mine once. He crawled in and hid
and then got stuck. I pushed him out with safety wire.

BTW, congratulations on the award for your Stits-finished airplane. I do
have a lot of respect and faith in the Stits system and in its durability.

On the issue of sheepskins saving a life, a cellphone saved the life of an
injured Mooney pilot who would probably have frozen to death had he not been
able to call and tell his long and lat -- he also had a GPS -- after a cold
winter's crash in the dense-forested WNC mountains of Graham County.

"the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault". Guess why? Because if it is not the pilot's fault,
then it must be the FAA's fault. They set up the processes and
procedures by which airplanes and their components are tested, approved,
distributed, tracked, and reinspected. If something goes wrong, either
this system is not perfect, or it is someone else's fault. Guess which
option the FAA chooses...?

Good Luck,
Mike



Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:52 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...


I always get a kick out of the FAA determinations: the pilots failure to
keep maintain flight after wing fell off...


Every accident is the pilot's fault. But sometimes, the pilot's only
mistake was getting out of bed that morning... :-)


I've noticed that too. About 10 years back they were very anti-pilot,
but now they are a bit more realistic. Did some old crust retire?


I'm currently engaged in a statistical analysis of accidents, and have read
about 600 reports in the last several weeks. You still see the main fault
being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a
mechanical fault. The vast majority of those cases involve engine failure
(in fact, I don't recall seeing cases that *didn't*).

Ron Wanttaja


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article , Ron Wanttaja wrote:
There was no water separation in the fuel when I checked the sumps. There
were tiny bubbles in the sample, but they looked like air. They did not

I remember readin this in the book, "I Learned about Flying From That".
The great phrase was, "Looks like champagne", to which the answer was
"It costs like champagne" :-)
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"