Former FAA aviation safety inspector thoughts

On Mar 28, 7:53 am, WA4...@ wrote:
>  The point of Standy by Vac & electrical  is very valid!   I have
> investigated many IFR accidents  with no indication as to WHY!
>
>  No radio calls no nothing!
>


I have a friend in the CHP that investigates car accidents. Often
times there is an accident where there is no sign of malfunction of
the car, skidding, etc. The one common element of all these accidents
is that they involve cars. The best bet to ensure your safety would
therefor be to avoid riding in a car.

-Robert

Michael wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:42 pm, "Mike Isaksen" <misak...@> wrote:

> vacuum failure was in a twin (as was one of the electricals), and was
> the result of two independent point failures. First the vacuum pump
> on the left engine quit - but since I was on top, still had one good
> one on the right engine, and was going home anyway, I elected to
> continue. Then the right engine quit for unrelated reasons. That put
> me in a single-engine, partial panel situation. Also, tops were above
> my single engine service ceiling. And there was icing in the clouds.
> And there I was, single engine, partial panel, shooting an ILS while
> ice was building.


Sounds to me like you need to be spending a bit more on aircraft
maintenance.

On Apr 4, 12:27 pm, Ray Andraka <r...@andraka.com> wrote:
>   Sounds to me like you need to be spending a bit more on aircraft
> maintenance.

You might think so, but the reality is that both electricals were on
planes I had just bought (lots of prior neglect), the vacuum failures
were both dry pumps failing without warning (I suppose you could argue
that they should be replaced prophylactically, but they have an infant
mortality rate, and I do have two), and the engine failures were one
on a plane I didn't own and two due to fuel contamination. No
maintenance related failures ever.

Michael

Wow Ray, bad "snip effort". I definitely didn't write that.

"Ray Andraka" wrote ...
>
>> On Mar 28, 12:42 pm, "Mike Isaksen" <misak...@> wrote:
>
>> vacuum failure was in a twin (as was one of the electricals), and was
>> the result of two independent point failures. First the vacuum pump
>> on the left engine quit - but since I was on top, still had one good
>> one on the right engine, and was going home anyway, I elected to
>> continue. Then the right engine quit for unrelated reasons. That put
>> me in a single-engine, partial panel situation. Also, tops were above
>> my single engine service ceiling. And there was icing in the clouds.
>> And there I was, single engine, partial panel, shooting an ILS while
>> ice was building.
>
>
> Sounds to me like you need to be spending a bit more on aircraft
> maintenance.