Real stats on engine failures?

"Peter Duniho" writes:

Packing ice/ash/... into the _air_ intake has little to do with the
fuel supply. (Again, I think I was not clear.)

I don't consider that a "failure" any more than I consider flying into the
side of a mountain a structural failure. Particulates dense enough to shut
down an engine are dense enough that the pilot had no business flying into
them in the first place (or was unfortunate enough to be overtaken by a
cloud).

Make sure I have this straight...

If an engine stops (against the pilot's wishes) in flight becuase it
can no longer get fuel, that's "engine failure". If it stops because
it can no longer get air, that's just "pilot error"?

--kyler

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
If an engine stops (against the pilot's wishes) in flight becuase it
can no longer get fuel, that's "engine failure". If it stops because
it can no longer get air, that's just "pilot error"?

Yes and no. It depends on why the engine can no longer get fuel. The most
common reason for an engine to be starved of fuel is that the pilot didn't
bring enough fuel along for the trip. This is pilot error. I already made
it clear that I realize this is one of the most common reasons for an engine
failure and that my comments regarding the statistics of engine failures
exclude engine failures due to fuel exhaustion.

Likewise, my comments regarding the statistics of engine failures exclude
engine failures due to a pilot flying into something that causes the air
intake to become clogged.

My comments are specifically targeted at genuine *failures*. That is,
something broke. There are plenty of reasons an engine might stop running,
but not all of them are pertinent to a reliability analysis discussing
failure rates and statistical chances of failure. You seem to keep trying
to introduce irrelevent types of engine failures, while I try to make clear
what it is I'm talking about.

Maybe I haven't been clear enough, but hopefully you're starting to get the
idea of what I'm actually talking about.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

My comments are specifically targeted at genuine *failures*. That is,
something broke.

Ah...o.k. That *is* different and I can appreciate the distinction.

There are plenty of reasons an engine might stop running,
but not all of them are pertinent to a reliability analysis discussing
failure rates and statistical chances of failure. You seem to keep trying
to introduce irrelevent types of engine failures, while I try to make clear
what it is I'm talking about.

No, I was coming at it more from the pilot's (rather than the
mechanic's) perspective. It's not "irrelevent" to a pilot when the
engine makes an uncommanded stop in flight. I think it's common for
pilots to call such stoppages "engine failures." I can see that
there might be a better term for it.

O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer
causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what
people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage...

Thanks for sticking with me through this.

--kyler

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer
causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what
people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage...

How about "undesired engine stoppage"? "Engine interruptus"? I dunno.

Thanks for sticking with me through this.

No problem...glad I could finally represent my thoughts in a way that was
understandable.

Pete

Kyler

How about "Pilot induced engine failures" and "Mechanical engine
failures" or "Non Pilot induced engine failures"?

There are probably some more sharp ones out there who can parse your
query and add to a proposed listG

Big John


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:09:19 GMT, Kyler Laird
wrote:

"Peter Duniho" writes:

My comments are specifically targeted at genuine *failures*. That is,
something broke.

Ah...o.k. That *is* different and I can appreciate the distinction.

There are plenty of reasons an engine might stop running,
but not all of them are pertinent to a reliability analysis discussing
failure rates and statistical chances of failure. You seem to keep trying
to introduce irrelevent types of engine failures, while I try to make clear
what it is I'm talking about.

No, I was coming at it more from the pilot's (rather than the
mechanic's) perspective. It's not "irrelevent" to a pilot when the
engine makes an uncommanded stop in flight. I think it's common for
pilots to call such stoppages "engine failures." I can see that
there might be a better term for it.

O.k., fuel exhaustion, air starvation, misfueling, ... are no longer
causes of "engine failures". Now to come up with a name for what
people mean when they talk about undesired engine stoppage...

Thanks for sticking with me through this.

--kyler