Re: Safety of single-engine IFR

Download ForPilots Logbook today! Forpilots Logbook is the award-winning computerized logbook solution. The software features a simple, easy to use user interface that looks just like a paper logbook, but adds advanced statistics and reporting capabilities. Download ForPilots logbook for free!

The chance of engine failure in a well-maintained, owner-operated piston is
about once every 50,000 hours. If ten percent of your flying is in low IFR
or at night, then the chance of an engine failure in those conditions is one
in 500,000. Most people can live with those risks. In fact, the real dangers
have little to do with engine failure and everything to do with pilot error.

"Marcelo Pacheco" <macpacheco@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:20020320.120053.246247255.3856@nospam.com...
> In article <2d5a5ab7.0203191331.770ae1c4@posting.google.com>, "Ken
> Goldstein" <ken.goldstein@cameo.net> wrote:
>
> > It is my opinion that single-engine IFR has no place in the skies other
> > than to pop through a layer of clouds that is less than a few thousand
> > feet thick. Why, you may ask? My reasoning is simple. If you lose an
> > engine and you're in the clouds you are basically hosed. You are going
> > down no matter where you are, and chances are good you can't really see
> > what you're going to hit until it's too late to do much about it. I do
> > not believe that constitutes safety, but any definition. If you want to
> > use your instrument rating to pop through a thin layer of clouds, that's
> > fine. If you want to use your instrument rating to sit in the clouds,
> > that is where I have a problem. Although you're technically legal to
> > depart Portland, and fly to Los Angeles in your Cessna and enter the
> > clouds at 50 feet and break out in L.A. at 200 feet, I don't think that
> > is the smartest thing to do, and I do not believe you deserve your
> > instrument rating if you disagree, becuase you clearly lack judgement.
> > Your options are nil if something goes wrong.
>
> Ken,
>
> Turbine aircraft are a lot safer than pistons, no questions there. I
> would much rather fly a single engine turboprop than a Baron. However, my
> budget is closest to a C-172/182 maybe a C-210, so I decided to actually
> go out and find information about piston engine reliability. The findings
> are that there is a LOT that can be done to improve piston reliability,
> where if it's properly maintained, it is somewhat unlikely a given pilot
> with a couple of thousand hours will ever experience a single engine
> failure. As long as you always fly high (except for departure and
> aproach), and have onboard GPS equipment with airports and highways
> (everything down to a state road), you're unlikely to ever loose an
> engine in a situation where you won't be able to either glide to an
> airport or land on a highway somewhere.
>
> The requirements to achieving that engine reliability level are:
> 1 - Fuel injected engines
> - With excelent fuel and air distribution between cylinders
> 2 - All cylinder engine monitoring package
> 3 - Lean of peak operations for cruise
>
> By operating the engine at a mixture setting well lean of peak (only
> possible with fuel injected engines with good fuel and air distribution
> between cylinders) you will reduce pressures on the crankshaft, increase
> combustion efficiency and reduce combustion temperatures.
>
> That should establish that although piston engines will likely always be
> less reliable than jet/turboprop engines, they can reach a level of
> reliability is fairly close to jets. The main reason they don't is the
> reason people use piston engines is because they are:
> 1 - Learning to fly
> 2 - Can afford to buy a better airplane, especially with the huge cost gap
> between piston and turboprop aircraft.
>
> To add to all of this, lycoming and continental themselves don't invest
> on making their engines lean of peak friendly, leaving that to 3rd
> parties.
>
> If I'm level at 10K and loose an engine on a C-172, I have 15+ minutes to
> land, so I'm very likely to glide to an airport, worst case to find a
> wide interstate, and land there. A $1000 class GPS can guide you to a
> highway with better than 50 meter accuracy. By just following the highway
> and cross checking with a sectional to make sure it's not within a tunnel
> (in high land), you can assure terrain clearance once you start getting
> lower than the MEA for that area.
>
>
> Marcelo Pacheco
> PP-ASEL IFR