Engine Failure survey - data for Northwest Aviation Conference Pilot Clinic

[Live2Learn]

Dealing with engine failure in SE piston powered aircraft is one of those things we practice in training, check rides, and BFRs. The NTSB aviation accident data base only records engine failures in that have a bad outcome.  We all know of pilots who have lost power (complete or partial), yet managed the situation so the outcome was a non-event.  It's clear that the NTSB accident data understates the number of piston engine failures. Whether by a little or a lot is unknown. Could the relatively small number engine failure accidents in the NTSB data base perpetuate a myth of reliability?  Are most pilots who lose an engine really skilled, very lucky, or both?

In February I will speak about engine failures and emergency procedures during a Pilot Clinic seminar at the Northwest Aviation Conference in Puyallup, WA.  I need your help!  Would the pilots among us invest just 5 minutes and complete the linked survey? The survey has just four questions.  The linked survey asks about your overall flight experience, then focuses on your experience in factory built, single engine, fixed wing, piston powered aircraft... Cessnas, Pipers, Maules, Mooneys, etc.

Here's the link:  Please share a little about your flying experience AND whether you've ever lost an engine.     

Using data you provide I will estimate the ratio between the number of engine failures we experience, and the engine failures that result in accidents or incidents.  To accomplish this the survey data set really needs to include engine failure experiences from pilots who have NEVER had an engine failure, as well as those who have had multiple "opportunities" to demonstrate proficiency in emergency procedures.

Thanks for your help!  I'll share the results after the Northwest Aviation Conference.  Maybe I'll see some of our forum members there.

John

[Eclipse]

You may also wish to consider that most of the respondents from this audience will spend some or all
of their flying hours in CAP aircraft which have a relatively higher maintenance rate then the average
privately owned GA aircraft.

That may or may not be a factor in the number of engine failures and /or engine failures with "bad outcomes".

[Live2Learn]

You may also wish to consider that most of the respondents from this audience will spend some or all
of their flying hours in CAP aircraft which have a relatively higher maintenance rate then the average
privately owned GA aircraft.

That may or may not be a factor in the number of engine failures and /or engine failures with "bad outcomes".

While I'd like to say "yep", I have other experience. 

My last engine failure was in a CAP 182.  Within 24 hours of my landing on a highway two other CAP 182's lost cylinders in flight, one with glider in tow.  I'm aware of at least four additional inflight cylinder failures since 2010 in CAP aircraft flying in the Western US.  If you do a search of the NTSB aviation accident DB using key words "Civil Air Patrol" you'll turn up more than one CAP record.  A similar search in Google will likely identify two (2) separate CAP 172 engine failures in the last five years (both at night, and fortunately both with minimal damage to aircraft)... While these incidents didn't make it to the NTSB prime time DB they are mentioned in news reports.  I'm aware of quite a few other "maintenance" related incidents and issues "with potential" that involve CAP aircraft.

I suggest we recognize that even our "well maintained" fleet can and does lose engines.  We also have other significant maintenance problems with our aircraft that could be the initiating link of an accident chain.  In the last few years we've not had any fatal accidents.  That's a major tribute to our  pilots who are both skilled and lucky. 

Please invest some time in the survey.  The smoking hole you prevent because of raised awareness may be your own.

John

[Eclipse]

I suggest we recognize that even our "well maintained" fleet can and does lose engines.

CAP has the largest private fleet of GA aircraft in the world, things break.  That doesn't point to a statistical issue
that they happen "more" in CAP then elsewhere.

We also have other significant maintenance problems with our aircraft that could be the initiating link of an accident chain.

Cite please, and define "significant".

In the last few years we've not had any fatal accidents.  That's a major tribute to our  pilots who are both skilled and lucky. 

The last few years?

When was the last crash of a CAP aircraft that was attributed to engine failure?

[Live2Learn]

I suggest we recognize that even our "well maintained" fleet can and does lose engines.

CAP has the largest private fleet of GA aircraft in the world, things break.  That doesn't point to a statistical issue
that they happen "more" in CAP then elsewhere.

We also have other significant maintenance problems with our aircraft that could be the initiating link of an accident chain.

Cite please, and define "significant".

In the last few years we've not had any fatal accidents.  That's a major tribute to our  pilots who are both skilled and lucky. 

The last few years?

When was the last crash of a CAP aircraft that was attributed to engine failure?

Eclipse:

We both know that CAP doesn't fly the "typical" missions of most of GA.  We fly at 1000' AGL, and may descend for a look-see to 500'.  We also fly in limited visibility and at night.  Sure, we have proficient pilots (mostly).  However our maintenance is far from perfect.  It can't be. 

Most of the terrain CAP flys over in the western states is not anywhere I would willingly land.  We can't be comforted that "statistically" mishaps do or do not "happen 'more' in CAP then elsewhere."  Most other GA pilots don't operate where we fly during training or actual missions.  I hope you agree that we must be much, much more attuned to the risks of where we fly.  The consequences of either mechanical failure or pilot lapse can be sudden and severe.


Three engine failures in 24 hours is cumulatively very "significant".  Fortunately all of the pilots involved were very skilled and very lucky.  The three events with potential I mentioned all occurred in September 2013, just 16 months ago.

• One aircraft lost a cylinder on takeoff with glider in tow... the pilot dealt with low energy, low altitude, and a huge amount of drag.  Fortunately his reactions were quick.  He released the glider, dumped the nose, and with his remaining partial power the aircraft had just enough energy to successfully execute the "impossible turn" - see various aviation publications for an in depth discussion of an "impossible turn" and its attendant risks. The pilot was very proficient, and very lucky.
• One incident involved a total engine failure on a moonless night in cruise at 4000' AGL over broken terrain. The nearest lighted airport was over 20 miles distant... well beyond glide.  The pilot dumped the nose to best glide (adjusted for current aircraft weight) and commenced an immediate turn toward the nearest lighted area, a 4 lane divided highway.  The aircraft landed on the highway, there were no injuries and there was no damage.  Not seen on the gliding approach to land was a power line a short distance behind the touch down point. The pilot inserted the aircraft in a small gap in traffic between an SUV and a Semi.  The pilot was very proficient, and very, VERY lucky.
• The third incident with potential involved an aircraft that lost partial power about six nm from their departure airport.  Fortunately they were at altitude.  The reduced power from their five remaining cylinders could not maintain altitude, however it allowed the pilot to descend at a rate that returned the aircraft to the airport with sufficient energy remaining to make a safe landing (go around was not an option).  The pilot was very proficient, and very lucky.

Any one of these three events-with-potential could have resulted in a crash with associated injuries, fatalities, and damage.  Again, that is the meaning of "significance".  Proficiency is more than practice of eye hand coordination.  It is cultivating an awareness of risk.  All three pilots mentioned above (I know them all) make a habit of that.  I hope participants on this forum will contribute their experience to our effort to maintain our awareness of the potential for engine failure.

You may not know about the 12 Aug 2008 accident, just over six years ago, involving a CAP C206 at KPLU.  That mishap resulted in two injuries.  The mishap could easily have resulted in serious injuries or fatalities.  The aircraft was a total loss of the aircraft due to a complete and sudden engine failure on final approach to land.  In this case the pilots ran out of luck.  The NTSB investigation, in which CAP was a participant, also suggests there may also have been a skill deficit.  For the NTSB Probable Cause statement See: [url=http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080908X01408&key=1&queryId=69e2d03d-e9c3-4a15-bf02-8e8a78098f7e&pgno=1&pgsize=50]http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080908X01408&key=1&queryId=69e2d03d-e9c3-4a15-bf02-8e8a78098f7e&pgno=1&pgsize=50
[/url].  The NTSB Factual and various documents in the docket are also worth reviewing. 

Only a little over 7 years ago in August of 2007 a CAP aircraft crashed while on a search in Wyoming.  The NTSB Probable Cause statement is here:  http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20070827X01244&key=1&queryId=742e5475-e6fb-4d55-88f9-c8060d8f69f6&pgno=2&pgsize=20  According to the NTSB Factual report the aircraft "was destroyed when it impacted terrain ...A post impact fire ensued. ...The commercial pilot, a pilot rated passenger (scanner trainee) and one observer were fatally injured."

Would we agree that either of these real "accidents" are significant?

It's unfortunate, but true that clusters of near misses (like the engine failures I described above, the 2008 ) are symptoms that signal a serious mishap is both possible and likely.  Luck and skill, skill and luck.  Those elements work together.  I continue to observe 'signals' that suggest CAP pilots need to pay attention, maintain proficiency, and hope the rabbit's foot continues to provide "juice".

I hope you will take a moment and complete the survey.  Just 'click' on the link embedded in my first post.

Thanks,

John[/list][/list]

[Live2Learn]

The give and take has moved us a long way from the initial post inviting CAP participation in preparing for a CAP Pilot Clinic.  I'm re-posting the contents below so people who wish to can participate in the survey. 

=============================================

Dealing with engine failure in SE piston powered aircraft is one of those things we practice in training, check rides, and BFRs. The NTSB aviation accident data base only records engine failures in that have a bad outcome.  We all know of pilots who have lost power (complete or partial), yet managed the situation so the outcome was a non-event.  It's clear that the NTSB accident data understates the number of piston engine failures. Whether by a little or a lot is unknown. Could the relatively small number engine failure accidents in the NTSB data base perpetuate a myth of reliability?  Are most pilots who lose an engine really skilled, very lucky, or both?

In February I will speak about engine failures and emergency procedures during a Pilot Clinic seminar at the Northwest Aviation Conference in Puyallup, WA.  I need your help!  Would the pilots among us invest just 5 minutes and complete the linked survey? The survey has just four questions.  The linked survey asks about your overall flight experience, then focuses on your experience in factory built, single engine, fixed wing, piston powered aircraft... Cessnas, Pipers, Maules, Mooneys, etc.

Here's the link:  Please share a little about your flying experience AND whether you've ever lost an engine.     

Using data you provide I will estimate the ratio between the number of engine failures we experience, and the engine failures that result in accidents or incidents.  To accomplish this the survey data set really needs to include engine failure experiences from pilots who have NEVER had an engine failure, as well as those who have had multiple "opportunities" to demonstrate proficiency in emergency procedures.

Thanks for your help!  I'll share the results after the Northwest Aviation Conference.  Maybe I'll see some of our forum members there.

John

[Eclipse]

Three engine failures in 24 hours is cumulatively very "significant".

No, it's a random coincidence, unless you can show a pattern to the failures.

"Clusters?"  Three incidents over an 8 year period qualifies as a "cluster"?

You don't need to repost the same OP - people can see it at the top, and when you want input from people,
it's a fair question to ask "why" or follow-up to see if there is a pre-determination involved that
the requested data will substantiate even if people don't agree with your theory.

[Spaceman3750]

I was sitting on the ground in a sarex ICP when we heard one of our AC declare on climb out due to a rough engine and return to the field late last year (stood on the ramp and watched them come back, tower rolled the fire dept and everything). Never heard what the issue was. I think another blew a cylinder a couple of weeks before. I agree that when you have a fleet of 550 ACs you start to become the victim of statistics. I'm sure our maintenance could be better too. We do run our planes pretty heavily in the busy months, I wonder if that has something to do with it?

[PHall]

There are a number of things that can make an engine run rough/quit.
Remember, there are three things you need for the engine to run,

FUEL        AIR        IGNITION

A fault in any of the above systems will result in engine problems.
Which means there can be many causes for engine problems.

And trying to get some "good" data on this is going to be a job.   Good luck!!

[Eclipse]

I'm sure our maintenance could be better too. We do run our planes pretty heavily in the busy months, I wonder if that has something to do with it?

OK, again, I'd have to ask for a cite on "issues".

CAP's maintenance policies are far above that which is mandated by the applicable regs and
factory suggestions and certainly more the most local FBO rentals or even most privately owned aircraft.

If anything, the complaint and constraint to operations is the aircraft are in maintenance too much due
to CAP's increased requirements.

[Spaceman3750]

I'm sure our maintenance could be better too. We do run our planes pretty heavily in the busy months, I wonder if that has something to do with it?

OK, again, I'd have to ask for a cite on "issues".

CAP's maintenance policies are far above that which is mandated by the applicable regs and
factory suggestions and certainly more the most local FBO rentals or even most privately owned aircraft.

If anything, the complaint and constraint to operations is the aircraft are in maintenance too much due
to CAP's increased requirements.

I'm not really saying that there's any specific issue - I have no clue. I'm more being broad - there's always room for improvement regardless of what you do. Wasn't really meaning to be negative, but in retrospect I could see why it would seem that way. Disregard.

[Live2Learn]

Thanks to all of the pilots who have shared your experience.  The information collected in this survey will be used in a CAP Pilot Clinic in February 2015.

The survey link is sinking slowly down the thread.  Here it is again:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCXT8XF

The survey is now up to 48 respondents.  CAP pilots are among the respondents.   A few more pilots who have not experienced an in-flight engine failure have responded.  The average flight time of survey respondents in factory built, fixed wing, single engine, piston aircraft is now about 1400 hours.  The reported ratio among the respondent population between a complete engine failure (i.e. total power loss) and NTSB accidents has widened to about 6:1, the ratio of partial power losses to NTSB accidents has also widened a bit to a little over 8:1.  A lot of the partial (and complete) engine failures are from carb ice, though the number of mechanical problems (swollowed valves, cracked cylinders, mag issues) continues to dominate the narratives.  Several pilots reported experiencing engine failures very early in their flying... within the first 100 hours or less.

If you haven't contributed to the survey, please invest 5 minutes and share your experience.  FWIW, there's a clock that tracks actual time in the survey --It really is only 5 minutes... .

[Майор Хаткевич]

What are they making these engines and pistons out of?

[SarDragon]

What are they making these engines and pistons out of?

Mostly iron and aluminum. All metals will fatigue, and once in a while there will be an undetectable flaw that will accelerate failure. Poor in-flight practices with the throttle and mixture will also accelerate failure via rapid temperature cycling. Airplane engines aren't as sturdy nor are they as forgiving as car engines.

[Live2Learn]

First, I want to thank the 340 pilots from this and other venues who have shared their experience in the engine failure survey.   
The results are starting to firm up.  If pilot on forum hasn't taken 5 minutes to respond to the four simple question, please do!  You might also copy the link and email it to pilot friends who don't participate on this forum.

FWIW, the National Transportation Safety Board reports that in 2012 loss of power was the second highest cause of accidents. Take a look at the part 91 graphic in the 2012 report titled "Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents" posted under Data and Stats on the National Transportation Safety Board website at   http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/d...20Summary.aspx 

I think we can agree that accident numbers and rates differ from the number of engine failures and the rate at which they occur. Accidents with a root cause of engine failure are a subset of all loss of power events. The estimate of all power loss events (from any reason) is a more interesting number than the number of reported accidents. Why? Because comparing known accident numbers to the ratio of non-event outcomes indicated by pilots who take the survey suggests how important pilot proficiency AND luck are in the outcome! GA SE FW piston engine events that make it into the NTSB db all involve major damage, serious injuries, or fatalities. This is very serious stuff!! BUT, all hazards considered, what is the real risk of an engine failure? I dunno, and it doesn't appear that anyone else does either. Indications from surveyed pilots pretty clearly suggests that proficiency and a little luck means engine failure does not equate to 'accident'. Now this is useful information, doncha think?!

To participate in the survey, please visit:   https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCXT8XF

[Eclipse]

Ignore, already answered.

[lordmonar]

First, I want to thank the 340 pilots from this and other venues who have shared their experience in the engine failure survey.   
The results are starting to firm up.  If pilot on forum hasn't taken 5 minutes to respond to the four simple question, please do!  You might also copy the link and email it to pilot friends who don't participate on this forum.

FWIW, the National Transportation Safety Board reports that in 2012 loss of power was the second highest cause of accidents. Take a look at the part 91 graphic in the 2012 report titled "Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents" posted under Data and Stats on the National Transportation Safety Board website at   http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/d...20Summary.aspx 

I think we can agree that accident numbers and rates differ from the number of engine failures and the rate at which they occur. Accidents with a root cause of engine failure are a subset of all loss of power events. The estimate of all power loss events (from any reason) is a more interesting number than the number of reported accidents. Why? Because comparing known accident numbers to the ratio of non-event outcomes indicated by pilots who take the survey suggests how important pilot proficiency AND luck are in the outcome! GA SE FW piston engine events that make it into the NTSB db all involve major damage, serious injuries, or fatalities. This is very serious stuff!! BUT, all hazards considered, what is the real risk of an engine failure? I dunno, and it doesn't appear that anyone else does either. Indications from surveyed pilots pretty clearly suggests that proficiency and a little luck means engine failure does not equate to 'accident'. Now this is useful information, doncha think?!

To participate in the survey, please visit:   https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCXT8XF

Sorry.....340 does not a statistical universe make.   While you may be on to something...and you are trying to collect the data.   Trying to make any conclusions or even trying to do any meaningful statistical analysis of the data on hand is really premature.

Your current premise is the number of "loss of power" incidents are under reported and under studied.

Your survey is one way to collect the data.....but 340 shot gunned surveys is NOT going to get you to any real statistical critical mass that you can make any analysis.  Let alone lead you to any conclusions about why or how those non-reported "loss of power" incidents did not end up as "loss of power accidents".


This is an interesting line of study......you need to continue it by expanding your survey audience (340 is too small compared to the GA audience), ensuring your audience is actually part of your target audience (right now anyone can answer there is no QC process).

Good Luck

[Eclipse]

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to "prove".

Based on your numbers above, and using 550 as the baseline estimate for the number of aircraft.
(7 planes out of 550) that's .01% failure rate, over a 4+year period.

Are you trying to draw some line between some "conspiracy of unreported failures" and your own use of a highway as a landing strip?

If anything, CAP's higher-then-standard maintenance requirements are a probable factor in why there are so few incidents overall,
considering the significant number of hours flown each year. Calculating the failure rate against the hours flown broke the calculator.

I think everyone would agree with the premise of your upcoming presentation that proficiency and experience are key to mitigating incidents
like that, but beyond that, stuff breaks.

[Live2Learn]

The survey is still open and accumulating data. It will remain available to pilots who have not previously responded through the end of March.

See: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XPYHMYD

When I presented at the CAP Pilot Clinic hosted by the Northwest Aviation Conference the survey data set included 407 pilots. About 20% of survey respondents had experienced 1 or more complete engine failures that required a forced landing on/off airport (N=81 pilots, complete engine failures = 99); about 1/3 of respondents had experienced 1 or more partial engine failures that required a precautionary or forced landing on or off airport (N=120 pilots, partial engine failures = 154).

Of the complete engine failures, about 18% (N=18) resulted in an accident, and about 15% (N=15) resulted in an incident. A "complete" engine failure for the purposes of this survey meant any time the engine ceased operation for ANY reason, the problem could not be resolved in the air, and the result was a forced landing on or off an airport.

Of the partial engine failures, about 3% (N=5) resulted in an accident, and about 3% (N=5) resulted in an incident. A "partial" engine meant any uncommanded reduction in power that resulted in a precautionary or forced landing, either on or off an airport.

Keep in mind this is NOT a random sample of pilots. The numbers are indications of trends, but they are NOT suitable for statistical inferences! None-the-less, the numbers suggest that the NTSB accident data base is a very imperfect predictor of the actual number of engine failures in FB FW SE PP aircraft.

Some of the 'warts' that must be kept in mind are:

==Dead pilots don't respond to surveys (about 12-14% of engine failures reported by the NTSB involve fatalities...)
==Survey respondents are self selected. This might over represent individuals who have experienced engine failure (losing the engine IS a memorable life event) by an unknown amount... conversely persons who have had an engine failure that didn't result in either accident or incident might decline to participate because of any number of concerns.
==Pilots who have never experienced an engine failure may or may not be proportionally represented.
==Respondents may be drawn from regions of the country where engine failures are frequent, or the converse might be true...

So take the numbers with a grain of salt.

These are the messages I pulled from the survey results:

--FB SE FW PP aircraft have more engine issues than the myth of reliability would lead us to believe.
--KNOW your emergency procedures!
--PRACTICE your emergency procedures!
--EXPECT the engine to fail at critical stages (during take off, while on approach or in the pattern, at night, in IMC, over water, over inhospitable terrain, etc.) and be prepared to deal with it!
--KNOW where you will put the airplane at all times should your powerplant become a house plant.

and enjoy your time in the air...

[Spam]

Your survey monkey appears to be dead (or maybe he's a Norwegian blue, and just resting).

In any case, another anecdotal point: on a 1991 actual SAR mission for two CAP aircrew missing out of Marco Island FL, I logged 9 hours right seat in a corporate C177RG out of Titusville. We experienced low oil press on the last sortie, but the sump was full when checked at base, so we filed IFR for home only to watch the oil pressure drop and temps skyrocket. With the engine nearly shut down we declared an emergency/squawked and near-glided in IFR conditions (one pass... Tom was a great stick) to Vero Beach, and found a full load of oil. I later heard that after the recent fresh annual the wrong cylinder rings were put in, and they found our oil filter clogged shut with bright metal shavings. The engine had self-re bored itself, and only the oil filter bypass had allowed us to not seize up and catastrophically fail.

I thought of that a few years later when we lost an engine on an MC-130F while flying inverted (DACT against F-5N aggressors) over the ranges near Yuma AZ... ho hum, got three more engines to fly on. No sweat.

I'm not sure either exactly what conclusions one can draw from this ANECDOTAL survey. CAP for its size has a better than average fleet mx record than GA. In my instance the A&P who did our annual was an FAA licensed A&P who was contracted to FLWG, not an organic CAP asset. If you're looking for CAP related causal factors, I'm not sure you'll have the ability to prove any linkage with the method you have here. 

My addition to your short list of messages:  Practice cockpit resource management (CRM) techniques as crews beforehand in all exercises and fly days and in clinics. In both my engine failure incidents, short, clear and ordered conversations and sterile cockpit procedures were major factors in time critical ops - being able to handle the aircraft, focus on setting us down, and dealing with information in crisis mode. I later heard the Sioux City and Sully river mishap reviews (both engine/hyd fails) supported this human factors finding as well.

V/R,
Spam