If you have an engine failure, and land without doing any major damage or injuring anybody, you don't have to report it. So this data isn't really tracked.

Goatrider:

It should be tracked and reporting engine failures should be stricter than reporting gunshot wounds.

More people would benefit if a pilot reported that he had an engine failure and the exact nature and reason for that engine failure than if he reported that he had a gunshot wound.

The percentage of engine failures may be small and some of them may have occurred due to poor maintenance, but if small airplane engine manufacturers had the same mindset as Saab and Volvo engineers who are notified of accidents in Sweden, those manufacturers would do a better job of making more reliable small aircraft engines.

Bountyhunter

Yes, you're right, it would be very useful information to know. But the rules don't require it, and as far as I know the NTSB doesn't track it. Here's as close as they come:



The NTSB doesn't track a lot of minor aircraft incidents that could be early indicators of safety trends. They don't even track total hours flown for general aviation, which would make the rest of their accident data a lot more meaningful. For example Cessna shows up a lot in the accident data. They have no data about how many hours cessnas are being flown. Does that make Cessna a bad airplane? Well, of course not, there are a lot of Cessnas out there.

Unfortunately things get done much sooner when fatalities start to occur.
Although usually when a number of similar accidents of the same type occur over a relatively short time span an investigation is pending.
I agree that the situation is far from perfect especially in regard to the unreported accidents and unapproved repairs.

NTSB's and FAA's big push the last 5 years has been runway incursions. They tightened the reporting rules, and whoa! Reported runway incursions went up! We've gotta do something about that! So every test you take from the FAA now, there's some in there about hold short lines. Probably including balloon and glider tests, no doubt. Seminars, magazine articles, free posters to every FBO, you name it. All about runway incursions. Probably hasn't made much of a difference.

I don't believe this information would be of any use for several reasons:

1. Most engine failures are caused by the pilot running out of gas. Most of the remaining engine failures are caused by poor maintenance.

2. The number of engine failures for a specific engine type is going to be more or less proportional to the number of those engines in use and the number of hours they fly. There are a lot more Lycomings in service than there are Subaru or Rotax, I suspect; and the Lycomings are going to be installed in commercially produced aircraft that are going to be flown a lot more often than somebody's homebuilt.

3. Different engines are used for different purposes. An engine that is found primarily in high performance aerobatic aircraft, for example, might have a higher incidence of engine failure than the ones in a twin turboprop commuter, simply because it's driven harder. (Or it might not.) Does that mean airshow performers should stick to lower horsepower engines? Not likely <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

4. There are only a handful of aircraft engine manufacturers out there, and their engines have a very long, very successful track record. Because of the TSO requirements in the US, these manufacturers tend not to make changes to the engine design, simply because it's prohibitively expensive to do so.

5. An engine failure may be caused by something that has nothing to do with the engine - lack of fuel, poor maintenance, dirty/contaminated fuel, ice crystals, carburetor icing, clogged fuel line, oil leak, shock cooling of the engine, applying the throttle too abruptly during a go-around, letting the engine idle too long during a simulated forced approach, etc. etc. There was one case in Flying magazine where a student pilot accidently snagged the ignition key, pulled it out of the ignition, and lost it under her seat. (The instructor was able to retrieve it and restart the engine.)

6. A complete engine failure in flight is usually survivable as long as the pilot maintains control of the aircraft.

7. The vast majority of fatal accidents have nothing to do with engine failure. These are routinely written up and published by the NTSB, Transport Canada, and other similar organisations. In Canada, they're sent out to active pilots on a monthly basis. So pilots have ready access to insight in what causes accidents, yet they still make the same stupid, bonehead mistakes month after month, year after year.

MHOO,OC <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />