[Lefty]

6000 hours
1 total engine stoppage - faulty ignition switch - off airfield landing on sandy river bank.

1 partial power loss - blocked fuel injector - managed 1 hour (careful) flight to airport landing

1 engine stoppage - fuel exhaustion due poor maintenance - engine restarted after tank change

[2Donkeys]

As I think I posted in the other thread, I was very surprised when I learned that, in FAA land, an engine failure that does not lead to an accident is not a reportable event.

Does anyone know why?

It is odd isn't it. The law governing the reporting of 'Accidents' and 'Serious Incidents' is defined in 49 CFR 830.2 and 830.5. They are worth a read. Much of this law is borne of identifying events leading to serious injury or death, rather than what might be of technical interest to the industry.

[Jonzarno]

@2Donkeys

Much of this law is borne of identifying events leading to serious injury or death, rather than what might be of technical interest to the industry.

Yes, I understand. I just thought that given the number of engine failures that have led to death or injury it might stir a level of interest a bit higher than that!

[2Donkeys]

@Jonzarno Those that have led to death or serious injury will of course have been picked up under 49 CFR 830. It is always going to be a more difficult area, capturing stats from the large population of incidents where those involved, 'got away with it' unscathed. Not least because, a number of those incidents will include circumstances where those who got away with it, got away with some negligence on their own part.

[Pete L]

Two inflight stops in 250hr. Neither would I class as engine failure.

[Jonzarno]

@Jonzarno Those that have led to death or serious injury will of course have been picked up under 49 CFR 830. It is always going to be a more difficult area, capturing stats from the large population of incidents where those involved, 'got away with it' unscathed. Not least because, a number of those incidents will include circumstances where those who got away with it, got away with some negligence on their own part.

Again, I understand. But it still seems daft to me that ALL of these occurrences are not the subject of mandatory reporting, not least because a proper reporting and failure mode analysis of these incidents should lead to design improvements that should reduce the failures and thus save lives and injuries.

In the other thread, pilots of BRS aircraft faced a good bit of criticism for using the chute as a result of incidents involving engine failure. Beyond that, there have been even more injuries and fatalities associated with these failures amongst those without the BRS option including one reported only today with an aircraft landing in a tree.

Surely it must make sense to focus on this accident factor and then expect the engine manufacturers to respond?

[lobstaboy]

I would say the opposite - many failures go unreported, a landing, a tweak to put things right and away again. And then there are 2-strokes ..................

Yes indeed. There's an article in this month's Microlight Flying magazine in which a chap who is a very well respected microlight pilot mentions a journey in which he had three engine failures one after the other, landing to check things and restart each time. Not considered anything other than a bit unusual.

But that was a fuel supply issue. Does that count as an engine failure? I don't think so - as Sir Morley says, most in flight engine stoppages are not true failures of the engine.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Pilot H]

There's a dirty little secret about aviation maintenance: it often breaks aircraft instead of fixing them

[tomshep]

A good two stroke is unlikely to drop a valve, break a rocker or wear out its camshaft.
And Dodo; didn't anybody tell you that it is unlucky to believe in superstition?