Safer Flying.

[farri]

The fatal accidents just keep happening.

 

I`ve seen a lot of deaths over the years simply because pilots chose to fly over areas where there was nowhere to land safely in the event of an engine failure,we`ve had three in NTH Queensland area over the last couple of years,two just recently.

 

I`ve asked the question," Does destiny play a part and can we change someone`s destiny"?,hard one to answer.

 

Let`s look at some of the easier answers and put down some of the things that can be done to reduce the injuries and fatalities.

 

I`ll start by saying," Always fly within gliding distance of a suitable landing area".

 

Frank.

 

 

[Mazda]

It's an admirable thought, but unfortunately it is not always possible. In fact, sometimes it is not even possible on take off, which means we wouldn't be able to ever get airborne!

 

Whilst it is very true that route selection is important, at some stage it has to come down to risk management. Being in Sydney, if we want to head west we have to deal with the fact that we have to cross the mountains, and there's nowhere to land. If we want to do a Victor 1 or Sydney scenic flight, there is nowhere to land. Even flying up the light aircraft lane to the north, there are times with nowhere to land.

 

So we can stay local, if that is the preferred option for that particular pilot. There's nothing wrong with that of course. But if we want to go somewhere all we can do is look at the most suitable route, but it doesn't mean within gliding distance of somewhere to land all the time. We need to consider aircraft maintenance, regular emergency procedure reviews, thinking "what if", monitoring instruments, LSALT, weather, alternates etc.

 

But flying has its risks, and those who choose to do it are often the types who will calculate that if all seems well, the probability of a problem over that particular spot is low enough to be offset by the reward of getting to the other side. That is the spirit of our pioneering aviators we admire so much!

 

 

[IanR]

I agree with Mazda (being Camden based as well). Flying is all about Risk Management. We all know there are risks, its what we do about them that counts. Before we go flying we need to understand the potential risks, try to mitigate them with backup plans and if there are some left over, like flying across to the west, work out whether the risk level is acceptable. If it is - then go - and if not, stay firmly on the ground.

 

Many of the risks are mitigated by our training (engine failure, stalls, emergency procedures, etc) - so keeping current and on top of these risks is one item I would add to your list.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Farri, to always fly within gliding distance of a suitable LA would mean never flying..not on the eastern seaboard of australia anyway..You said these guys died "simply becasue they chose to fly over tiger country". Unfortunatly things are never that SIMPLE..The engine had to fail first didnt it??As the others have said, risk managment is the thing..

 

Maintanace, preflight checks, Flying as high as possible, i reckon things like that will keep us all kickin..

 

Personally, im a limits man..Know the limits of the machine, and know the limits of the man.. Ive lost dear friends who were fantastic pilots, as a result of pushing the limits, pushing the rules that little bit.. That left me with a terminal fear of flying outside the envelope, both structurally and operationally.Things like VNE , VFE etc are not to be messed with under any circumstances...EVER..Same goes for wx..

 

cheers...

 

 

[Yenn]

How many of the fatalities per year are from tiger country flying compared with in the circuit accidents, airframe failure or just plain stupidity?

 

This is why I would like to see all the statistics.

 

 

[markendee]

We here in the Goulburn Valley fly over tiger country each time we leave our backyard.

 

Be it the Barmah Forest, the Great Divide or even Kaw Swamp.

 

I cannot remember the last time my engine failed in any of my cars. I mean any of them even going back thirty years to the time we all drove old Holdens. In fact the only time I have ever had to walk was when out of fuel. (My fault for being stupid)

 

Why do we have the occasion to doubt our engines in our aircraft? My Rotax cost more than a whole Honda CBR1000R - with a high tech engine that never quits, plus all the rest that goes with it.

 

We service our engines, we filter our fuel, we inspect daily so what is the issue here?

 

The little plane does not know when it is over tiger country.

 

If I have to worry that I cannot glide to an empty paddock I will give the game away.

 

Not into unnecessary risks but let's have a go.

 

Mark

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mark..while i agree that modern engines are very reliable, and flying over tiger country is a unavoidable sometimes, your post made my skin crawl. Rotax's do stop . Believe me. I have had 2 engine failures, both were rotax's. A club CFI i was talking to the other day has had 9 engine failures..ALL in acft with rotax's. ANY engine can fail, for one simple reason, they are designed, built, maintained and operated by humans. Fuel starvation is probably the biggest cause of engine failures. Wrong tank selection, fuel blockages, contaminated fuel, accidental shuting off of the fuel ****, Vapour lock, carby ice..The list goes on.

 

Like i said, most guys should be able to fly for years and never have a problem..But to just think its never gunna happen is a recipe for disaster.. Why do we bother with all the forced landings and things during training? And believeing its never gunna happen would affect the pilots attitude in respect to practising (post licence) for these events.

 

Its a basic underlying principle of airmanship that we believe the engine could fail at any time, we hope for the best and plan for the worst.. Tracking over better terrain is deffinatly better than tiger country, but as i said beofre its not always practical.

 

So where does our mistrust of aircraft engines come from?? I can only answer for myself on this one, and thats friends in boxes pushin up daisies. Guys who DID believe thier engine could fail, and did practise for it..ALOT... but still, it happend, and they didnt make it out of the situation..

 

I am sorry for going on at you, but im really trying to change your attitude. It may be pretencious of me, but i dont care, as an instructor i feel a personal responsability towards all members, even guys with years and years of experiance...

 

cheers and sorry again...

 

Andy

 

 

[Mazda]

Honda engines do fail. The camchain tensioner on a CBR600 was chewed up and the bits of plastic went into the sump, blocked the oil pick up, and the engine went bang.

 

Not to mention how many bike engines seize during racing.

 

And I also won't mention the VF750.:confused:

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We service our engines, we filter our fuel, we inspect daily so what is the issue here?

That was me to a T right up to the point that the Rotax582 siezed turning cross wind. Not surprisingly my outlook on failure is somewhat changed now.

 

Lets face it, comparing car engines to aircraft engines to a certain extent is a false comparison.:-

 

1) Generally speaking who in the car world gives a stuff if the motor weighs 20kgs more than it could

 

2) How many car engines are operated at 75% of maximum power for hours at a time after operating at 100% for up to 20 minutes or more. In a car engine, 100% for seconds at a time followed by 10-30% for hours at a time

 

bad stuff does happen, and regularly, especially as most everything in the aircraft we fly is a combination of compromises.

 

582 is a 2 stroke, and I now know that the issue was mine.

 

While I was taught that failure is always imininent there was a degree of complacency that probably needed the failure to shift. I was fortunate that I survived the incident to learn that lesson, I hope you too are fortunate.

 

Andy

 

 

[markendee]

Hi all,

 

All good points and yes I do appreciate that an aircraft engine can fail at any time. In fact any engine can fail at any time. Looking out for a safe place to land and having a plan for the event is a major part of every bit of every trip.

 

I have known of many Rotax engines that have failed in flight. I would very much like to see the official (not anecdotal) statistics of two to four stroke Rotax failures. (and the true reason. Design or error?)

 

Honda CBR engines can and do chew up cam chain tensioners and as a Honda Motorcycle and Power Equipment dealer for the last thirteen years I have seen this many times - but not on an engine that was properly serviced and one that was not giving some sign this was about to happen - noise particularly, low, poor quality or old oil another reason. For an engine to fail because of poor design is extremely rare or they all would. I might say at this point that I would not fly an aircraft running an engine with a cam chain or a belt driven gearbox - that's just me)

 

If an aircraft engine is built so lightly that it's design makes it highly susceptable to failure then give me one that is heavier every time - will gladly trade fifteen kilos for my life. Remember these engines are designed to perform within those parameters - hence the price.

 

Merv, I respect your words and the manner in which you offered them but most of the reasons you listed for engine failure are pilot/maintainer error. You even mention that being maintained by humans is an issue. (might need to find some other humans to do it for you) Merv maybe when flying around locally over wide open plains one can inadvertently turn off the wrong fuel valve and live to chuckle but please don't blame the engine and please read the label on the valve if over more inhospitable terrain. Another tip is whenever you reduce power put on the carby heat - should help a bit.

 

I do appreciate your posts and I do always know that an engine can (and does) fail at any time. My point is that we are in a higher risk situation when flying, minimise the risks (check sheets are a wonderful thing) service the engine to beyond book standards, filter all the fuel (Mr Funnel even prevents moisture passing through) don't take silly risks and remember there is nowhere you have to be.

 

I see engines that have failed every month of my life as part of my day to day business. Not one is because the engine was not capable of performing to the manufacturers intentions. ( I am of course referring to high quality machines, not chinese copies) This is different from being worn out and no longer up to scratch - in that case it is still running but time for some serious reconditioning.

 

Regards,

 

Mark (still watching those pressure and temp gauges like a hawk)

 

 

[Mathew Ker]

Good post Mark, :thumb_up:

 

Regards, Mathew

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mark.. That sounds more like it..I got the impression from your first post that you thought it was next to impossible to get an engine out.. Obviously from your last past this isn't the case..

 

As you said, i quoted most reason's for engine failures to be pilot/ maintainer error, and i stand by that comment. And yes, i am aware that useing carby heat minnimises the chances of icing, i teach it every day. And yes i am aware of the importance of checklist's. I could show you 100's of cases where 20,000 hour plus airline captains who are equally if n ot more aware of their importance have still managed to balls up, and 20 million dollar engines have failed, there's even cases of 4 20 million dollar engines failing within minutes of each other with full tanks of fuel.

 

Carby heat devices can fail, and carby ice can form at cruise power settings.. Im saying all this because the checklist's and systems we have in place are not impervious to error..

 

Thanx for clearing up your position on the matter..

 

cheers

 

Andy

 

 

[markendee]

Thanks Mathew and Merv.

 

Isn't it nice to be able to communicate our respective positions without becoming personal or malicious?

 

After the kerfuffle of the past few days it is very refreshing.

 

It is exactly situations such as this that provokes adult discussion and is food for thought.

 

Merv, you are right in respecting our old mate Mr Murphy.

 

In this way the forum helps us all.

 

Regards,

 

Mark

 

 

[motzartmerv]

:thumb_up:onya mark:thumb_up:

 

 

[Mazda]

Mark I think the comment about using carby heat whenever the power is reduced is not always the case. My aircraft has a carby temp gauge, and full carby heat is very hot. If I apply full carby heat when the power goes back, the engine can rough rough - from heat, not ice. So I monitor the gauge but have found in that particular aircraft, the carby heat is not used much at all.

 

 

[markendee]

Mazda,

 

I realise all my comments are open to interpretation. eg, an engine maintained by the book (or beyond) can still fail.

 

Would rather my engine run rough than cut out though.

 

All I want for myself is that if I should become an unfortunate statistic to know that I had done everything possible to avoid such a situation and minimise the risk.

 

And to have fun.

 

Mark

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mazda, is the rough running caused by the mixture needing to be changed due to less dence (hot) air being introduced into the carby??if so, the rotax's shouldn't experiance this problem because of the auto mixture..

 

cheers

 

 

[Mazda]

No idea Merv, I'm not an engineer!

 

All I know is the first time I used full carby heat in the circuit in this aircraft I thought the engine was going to stop it was so rough. Got rid of the carby heat and she purred.

 

My point is not that carby heat should or shouldn't be used, it is to be aware that some aircraft may need it at times that others may suffer from its use. I was not taught that in training. I was told the importance of its use, but not that it can actually cause problems!

 

Note too that this particular aircraft has a carby temp gauge, probably for that exact reason. Most aircraft don't have one, and in those if all indications were normal I'd normally use carby heat.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea, ive heard you talk about that before (temp guage) it sounds like an exellent idea to me..take the guess work out of it.. Im pretty sure the mixture problem i described is whats happening...

 

cheers

 

 

[poteroo]

Some good advice above. Any engine can 'fail' - for any number of reasons.

 

My best advice.....always have a plan.

 

Sometimes, the shortest route isn't the smartest. Why did we all fly via the gaps in PNG........... because most cleared land, and riverbanks, were in the valleys. As well, why flog your engine an extra 5000ft to get over the hills when it's only 10 mins more to go around?

 

I've had 4 totals - 3 were big Continentals, and the last a Jabby 2200 - and the root cause of each problem was mechanical failure way inside - which a pilot could not have identified. In my 'events' if I hadn't been close to, or nearly over, a cleared locale, it would have been curtains......which brings in the factor of 'the plan....which was to never be too far from a forced landing area.

 

It's just as applicable in Oz. Here in WA I have often flown Laverton/Leonora to Ayers Rock....but never direct!! Many do, but I'm a cautious driver, and go an extra 10 minutes via over-the-top Warby Range. Roads most of the way, and you'd expect to get down in one piece.

 

Another point not raised above is that you should use all of the G airspace available to you - wx permitting. That might mean using an 'opposite' hemispherical level, and that right on the bottom of CTA. eg, you are coming from the east into Jandakot, and elect to fly 2500 because it's 'hemispherical' and below CTA. That's fine...but you could just as well use 3500, stay on Perth radar for traffic guidance, and have another 1000 up your sleeve when traversing tiger country. I'm sure there are plenty of similar situations in the east.

 

happy days,