Safety of GA flying

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

What I really did was ask Mr. Rubble to explain how much of a "part of
the equation the reliability of piston engines" really is - after he
stated it was.

I've read this very question over and over from you. At some point, I
said to myself why doesn't this guy just look up the answer?

BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
light SEPs).

Oh, and BTW(2): I had one incident when the tug lost its power just
after being airborne while I was in the glider behind. Believe me or
not, at that moment, I wasn't interested the least bit in statistics. I
survived and so did the glider I flew, but it was, well, a moment to
remember.

Stefan

Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every 105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

Bye bye

- Barney

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Barney,

Another part of the equation is the reliability of piston engines vs
turbines....


Is it? How many piston accidents are due to engine failure? Is that a
major factor in accidents? In fatal accidents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

The IFSD [in flight shut down] rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

That's one shutdown for every ten or twenty hours. I have not
experienced that rate, and I've flown piston singles for nearly a
thousand hours.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

shutdowns for every 105
hours of flight

Going back to the original link, I believe you meant "for every 10^5
hours... that is, for every 100,000 hours...

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

FYI,

It shows that accident rate per 100,000 hours going up slightly. I would
prefer it go down, but plan to keep flying in any event. I am too addicted
to it.

Here is some info I pulled from the FAA.gov site.

Executive Summary: A total of 1,727 general aviation accidents occurred
during calendar year 2001, involving 1,749 aircraft. The total number of
general aviation accidents in 2001 was lower than in 2000, with a 6%
decrease of 110 accidents. Of the total number of accidents, 325 were fatal,
resulting in a total of 562 fatalities. The number of fatal general aviation
accidents in 2001 decreased 6% from calendar year 2000, and the total number
of fatalities that resulted also decreased by 6%. The circumstances of these
accidents and details related to the aircraft, pilots, and locations are
presented throughout this review.


Also, on the following site is the text below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/060317.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 17, 2006 SB-06-14
NTSB REPORTS INCREASE IN AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board today released
preliminary statistics for 2005 showing an overall increase in civil
aviation accidents for both scheduled airline and general aviation
operations.

U.S. civil aviation accidents increased from 1,717 in 2004 to 1,779 in 2005.
However, total fatalities decreased from 636 to 600, and most of these
occurred in general aviation and air taxi operations.

"The increase in accidents is disappointing," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark
Rosenker, "but the decrease in total fatalities is a hopeful sign. Overall,
it is clear that we need to maintain a strong focus on safety in all
segments of the aviation community," he said.

General aviation accidents increased from 1,617 in 2004 to 1,669 in 2005.
Of these, 321 were fatal accidents, up from 314 in 2004. The general
aviation accident rate increased from 6.49 per 100,000 flight hours in 2004
to 6.83 in 2005. The fatal accident rate increased from 1.26 to 1.31. The
number of fatalities rose slightly from 558 to 562.

In 2005, 32 accidents were recorded for Part 121 scheduled airline
operations, including three that resulted in 22 fatalities. In June, the
driver of a mobile belt baggage loader at Washington Reagan National Airport
was fatally injured when the vehicle struck a US Airways Express EMB-170
being prepared for flight. In December, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737
slid off the runway at Chicago's Midway Airport, went through a barrier
fence and onto a roadway, killing a passenger in a passing automobile. Also
in December, a Chalk's Ocean Airways Grumman G73T experienced an in-flight
breakup shortly after takeoff in Miami, resulting in 20 fatalities.

Air taxi operations reported 66 accidents in 2005, the same number as
reported in 2004. The accident rate for this category showed a slight
decrease from 2.04 per 100,000 flight hours in 2004 to 2.02 in 2005, with
fatalities dropping markedly from 64 in 2004 to 18 in 2005.

Tables 1-12 providing additional statistics are available at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm.


NTSB Media Contact:
Paul Schlamm
(202) 314-6100




NTSB Home | News & Events

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert schrieb:

What I really did was ask Mr. Rubble to explain how much of a "part of
the equation the reliability of piston engines" really is - after he
stated it was.

I've read this very question over and over from you. At some point, I said
to myself why doesn't this guy just look up the answer?

BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the light
SEPs).

Oh, and BTW(2): I had one incident when the tug lost its power just after
being airborne while I was in the glider behind. Believe me or not, at
that moment, I wasn't interested the least bit in statistics. I survived
and so did the glider I flew, but it was, well, a moment to remember.

Stefan

Barney,

The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.


Wow! That kind-of sounds unlikely, doesn't it? If that was valid, most
of the people here would have experienced an in-flight shutdown.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan,

BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
light SEPs).


Hmm. That seems unusually high.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose,

Going back to the original link, I believe you meant "for every 10^5
hours... that is, for every 100,000 hours...


Ah, now that makes sense. That is obviously higher than with turbines,
however, what I was getting at was how much of a role engine failures
play in the "overall danger" of piston flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Barney Rubble wrote:
Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every 105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Barney Rubble wrote:
Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he
was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly
serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he
is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every
105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate
is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.


No he just doesn't know how to read numbers it wasn't 105 hours it was 10^5
hours or 100,000 hours. I have no desire to read the whole report but it is
a 2000 report titled, "Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science for
Military Systems."