Emergency landing today Troutdale, OR

gatt writes:

Good point. They didn't! The local media is treating him like a hero.

Well, he followed God's instructions for his approach and landing,
didn't he?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

gatt writes:

He said on the news last night that the engine stuttered and then quit as
he
was coming into the pattern. Said as sure as he was standing there, God
told him where and how to land. By the look on his face you could tell he
meant it.

Perhaps God will be able to speak to me and explain why I'm such an asshole

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 2, 3:49 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
A new engine
should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
maintenance.

disagree.
the analogy is when you buy a car from the dealership, it comes with a
warranty. specifically because it is uncertain whether there were any
problems in manufacture. (and because it helps sell cars). why do you
think hyundai offers 100k of bumper to bumper (i'll give you a hint,
it's not at all because they expect you to never need it)

Somebody but not Mxsmanic wrote:


Perhaps God will be able to speak to me and explain why I'm such an
asshole

God also know we sure as hell don't need two of you.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:30:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

A used aircraft would be more likely to have engine problems, unless
it were perfectly maintained, which is improbable. A new engine
should run perfectly for some reasonable time, irrespective of any
maintenance.

Google "Infant Failure" and then tell us if you still think that statement
is valid.

The guys I bought my plane from had a 25 hour engine fail in their
current plane.

"B A R R Y" wrote

The guys I bought my plane from had a 25 hour engine fail in their
current plane.

That's O.K. , Barry. Only one particular idiot does not understand that
engines sometimes die young.

Why do we feel we need to convince HIM, anyway? I still don't get it.
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:49:12 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:48:31 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

From accident reports. When I compare GA reports to commercial
airliner reports, the prominence of engine problems as a contributing
factor in accidents is difficult to ignore.

Number of engines enters into it, too. When the vast majority of GA aircraft
have an engine failure, they're going down. Airliners have more than one engine
(by regulation) and mere engine failure only rarely results in an accident.
Thus, even if the powerplant reliability rates were the same, airliners would
have lower accident rates.

Forgot to mention, too, that there are a LOT more GA airplanes than airliners.

Examining an FAA Aircraft Registration database from about a year ago, it shows
359,540 total registrations. There are 17650 airplanes registered as transport
class. However, most of these are GA aircraft (Learjets, Hawkers, etc.).

I ran a search for Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed, SAAB, Douglas,
Aerospatiale, and Embraer aircraft (using shortened versions of the names and
wildcards), restricted the search to non-recip-powered aircraft (eliminates the
DC-3s and similar) and also limited it to fixed-wing aircraft (all those M-D
helicopters). I got 7307 registrations. If we (generously!) round this up to
an even 10K, that still means that only about one out of every 35 aircraft is in
airline service.

So of course you hear of more GA aircraft having engine problems...there ARE a
lot more of them.

Ron Wanttaja

Morgans writes:

Why do we feel we need to convince HIM, anyway? I still don't get it.

Trying to convince others is a good way to see if your own opinions
have a substantial and objective basis. Unfortunately, many people
get upset when they realize that their opinions are baseless.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

("WestCDA" wrote)
Or the absence of air or igition - which are still not an 'engine
problem'. For all that is known at this point there could have a raccoon
living in the air intake, or bad wiring on an aftermarket ignition.
Probability is more likely with fuel, but a 'sputtering' engine could have
been a lot of things.


We're kind of splitting raccoon hairs here, aren't we?

Hair/fur, whatever.

Splitting the hairs under your raccoon hat. There.

When an engine sputters ...THAT'S A PROBLEM!

Ok, assuming you have some hair under your raccoon hat to begin with...


Montblack
We live (1/4 mile) from the Coon Rapids, MN border.

("The Visitor" wrote)
Actually, the reliability of a properly maintained GA piston engine is
very high. The MTBF is of the order of 10**5 hours,

Hmmm, and I buy lottery tickets with odds over 14,000,000 to 1, thinking,
"I might win."


You're really buying lottery insurance. If it hits, you're covered.


Montblack