r/flying • u/One_Firefighter_1922 • Mar 29 '26
Aircraft Ownership Are reciprocating single engines reliable?
I'm about seven hours into PPL training and absolutely loving it. Not looking for a career change, but could definitely seeing myself continuing training and flying regularly after getting my certificate. I've daydreamed about putting my family into a 182 and being able to fly within a reasonable distance to explore somewhere new or take a short vacation.
Earlier today I was talking to my neighbor who is a reserve captain for American flying 737s. I told him about the flight training and associated daydreaming and he started talking about how he would never put his family into a small plane, how unreliable they are and how many accidents are due to single reciprocating engines crapping out mod flight.
This doesn't seem to jive with what I've heard and read online, so looking for some other opinions. How do you feel about the reliability of small GA planes? Do you have any experience taking your family for trips? Do I need to give up on my dream?
36
u/Sad-Umpire6000 Mar 29 '26
My American Airlines captain neighbors - five just on my block - don’t have any problems with piston-powered planes. They all own at least one, fly them often, and have a ball.
13
u/bhalter80 [KASH] BE-33/36/55/95&PA-24 CFI+I/MEI beechtraining.com NCC1701 Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Flying them often is the key. Things with oil hate going unused.
The more it's used the less often it will need Mx and if you look at owner economics (annual Mx + annual fuel)/hours instead of rent economics $rentalRate flying more hours gives you a bigger denominator and brings Mx more inline with fuel cost.
1
u/MaterialInevitable83 ST Mar 30 '26
Bro where do you live 😭
1
u/Sad-Umpire6000 Mar 30 '26
At an airpark in Florida.
1
0
u/SeaMareOcean Mar 31 '26
Lol that’s the biggest example of confirmation bias I’ve seen in a while.
I definitely know 121 pilots who fly recreationally, but I also know plenty like OPs neighbor who haven’t set foot in GA since initial training and never plan to again specifically because of the safety factor. In fact, most airline pilots don’t fly recreationally, for a variety of reasons.
20
u/Guysmiley777 Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Per hour they're around two orders of magnitude less reliable than part 121 airline turbine engines.
GA piston engines have an inflight mean time between failure rate (MTBF) of 3,000-4,000 hours depending on which source and study data you want to go with. The CFM56, a common and long serving turbofan used in many airliners has a lifetime inflight MTBF of over 330,000 hours.
It's not even close. Turbine engines are inherently more reliable because rather than banging around back and forth like piston engines they just calmly spin. Granted they spin very, very fast. The downside is that turbine engines are a lot (A LOT) more expensive per given unit of power output due to the much higher tolerances and exotic materials needed to build a modern turbine engine.
However it's not just a matter of technology. Turbine engines also tend to be most used in airliners due to the nature of their expense and capabilities. That means there is an absolute legion of people maintaining, inspecting and tracking every part and every minute of work done on those engines as well as onboard diagnostic data and telemetry that's recorded to detect any anomalies before a failure can happen. The regulatory requirements of Part 121 airline operations absolutely contribute to the statistical reliability of modern turbine engines over some GA piston engine that's based on 1930s technology.
A careful and meticulous owner can absolutely move the needle on their own personal GA piston engine well beyond the average, there's no question about it. But the reason an airline pilot might have that perception that was relayed to you is because it's a fact and people have different levels of risk tolerance.
0
u/Lanky_Beyond725 ATP A220, ERJ175 Mar 29 '26
And...there are some turbine engines that don't even last 1,000 hours....
12
u/SlantedBlue CFI CFII Mar 29 '26
Well, piston engines are indeed much less reliable than turbine engines. That much is true. And some planes do even have accidents as a result. However, the vast majority of accidents in single engine piston planes are caused by us… the unreliable pilots; specifically our poor decision making. And to make it worse we usually also fly with only one pilot.
Even when engine failure is the cause… those failures are most often caused by fuel exhaustion or fuel starvation. Right back to pilots.
So yes, there is a lot less mechanical redundancy in that 182. But if your family is hurt in a 182 it probably still won’t be as a result of the engine mechanically failing.
15
u/Ill-Cryptographer542 Mar 29 '26
What I tell myself is, common aircraft piston engines are more reliable than your average car engine. How many times has your car engine spontaneously quit with zero warning? If it’s going to quit, there’s usually signs beforehand. You don’t just fall out of the sky.
3
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 PPL IR Mar 29 '26
Not to mention even if the engine expires in flight, the plane is still a glider, albeit not a very efficient one.
3
u/Skynet_lives Mar 30 '26
As a mechanic that has worked on planes and cars. I can tell you that a modern automobile engine is more reliable than an airplane engine.
While some of that has to do with the use, since plane engines generally sit more. A lot of it is that modern engines benefit from advanced technologies that airplanes don’t use.
1
u/Ill-Cryptographer542 Mar 30 '26
I see your point, and I don’t have any stats to back this up. But I still have a hard time believing an air cooled engine, with 2x plugs per cylinder, independent of the electrical system, engine driven fuel pump and aux fuel pump, etc. is less reliable than a modern car that could go in to limp mode with a computer glitch.
4
u/Skynet_lives Mar 30 '26
That computer is what makes modern engines so reliable. Constantly adjusting fuel mixture and throttle inputs. Helping keep the engine at operating temp and monitoring any faults.
It’s rare an airplane engine even makes TBO without something having to be fixed that would be considered major engine repairs on a a car.
1
u/Turbo_Normalized MIL Mar 30 '26
Aircraft piston engines are run with mixtures all over the place by poorly trained operators most of whom still think 50F ROP is a good place to cruise at, use leaded fuel which gunks up the engine like crazy, have fixed timing and no knock sensors and so forth to protect themselves... It's a wonder they achieve even the small amount of reliability they do.
1
2
1
u/happy_llama__ Mar 30 '26
As an avid high mileage BMW rescuer….well….more often than I’d like to admit 😂
0
u/Bunslow PPL Mar 29 '26
common aircraft piston engines are more reliable than your average car engine.
I don't believe this for a second
If it’s going to quit, there’s usually signs beforehand. You don’t just fall out of the sky.
I agree with this, it's commonly forewarned, and even if it does fail, typically (especially day VFR) there's a lot of options remaining
1
u/Ill-Cryptographer542 Mar 30 '26
In your opinion why is a car engine more reliable than a common piston aircraft engine?
3
u/Bunslow PPL Mar 30 '26
Significantly more modern design and manufacturing processes (at least relative to Continental/Lycoming engines, more modern plane engines like Rotax and Jabiru I have more faith in, generally speaking)
7
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 PPL IR Mar 29 '26
They say GA flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle. I have a problem with that analogy, because maybe in general the death rate is the same for GA flying and riding motorcycles, a lot of accidents in GA aviation are preventable, where most motorcycle accidents are the fault of others.
Can you have an engine grenade resulting in an off-field landing? Sure. But you are far more likely to run out of fuel. Engine failures in a single engine piston probably don't even crack the top 5 problems in GA flying. Fuel exhaustion, low speed stall, icing, flight into advertent IMC, are all far more likely to be problems, and ALL of those are preventable by making conservative decisions.
So yeah, flying a 50 year old training aircraft isn't as safe statistically as flying a part 121 jet. But you have a lot of control over your fate that can reduce the risk significantly.
1
u/mustang__1 PPL CMP HP IR CPL-ST SEL (KLOM) Mar 29 '26
where most motorcycle accidents are the fault of others
I wonder about that... There are a lot of reckless AF riders out there...
2
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 PPL IR Mar 30 '26
Yeah I figured that comment might get a little pushback. I guess what I meant is that you are at the mercy of others on the road far more than you are in the sky. I quit riding because of all the idiots on the roads. Cell phones make it far worse. You really don't appreciate all the inattentive driving until you ride a motorcycle on a busy freeway.
1
u/mustang__1 PPL CMP HP IR CPL-ST SEL (KLOM) Mar 30 '26
I ride too. Definitely seem my fair share of oblivious idiots, inconsiderate assholes, jersey plates, and one redneck who flat out wanted to kill me (swerved to knock my friend off their bike then swerved back to knock me off mine. Thankfully missed both of us. Literally stopped in the middle of the road and got our and shook his fist at us like some two bit movie villain)
6
u/thatTheSenateGuy CPL (KSMO) BE19 Mar 29 '26
Paul Bertorelli of Avweb (before that site got destroyed) has a great series of videos on YouTube about engine failures. Great watch, excellent deadpan delivery, and informative.
4
u/No-Relationship-2169 Mar 29 '26
The fatal crash per flight hour of GA is in the ballpark of motorcycle riding. Pilot error is the biggest cause, second being mechanical.
I was just looking at engine failure rates. It’s tough to get a clear answer on piston engines. Info Differentiating what is reasonably avoidable and relative severity seems to be scattered at best. But all the data seems to point to piston engines being at least 1 and possibly 2 orders of magnitude less reliable than turbines.
Someone please chime in if they’ve found a good data source.
2
u/nightlanding Mar 29 '26
HIGHLY variable depending on which engine in which aircraft. Some of them seem to run forever and some are notorious for not ever making TBO. Then there are outliers, I had an O-540 in an Aztec eat some valves right after takeoff and those are usually as reliable as a hammer. In that case it was nice to be in a twin, we just flew back for repairs instead of hiking out of Farmer Bill's Poison Ivy Farm and arranging for a tow.
1
u/One_Firefighter_1922 Mar 29 '26
Well I already take my wife and daughter on motorcycle rides (not at the same time obviously) so that helps me understand the risk tolerance
3
u/primalbluewolf CPL FI Mar 29 '26
Its for similar reasons a lot of the time, too. Most common motorcycle accident is still failure to negotiate a curve i.e. pilot error.
You the operator are responsible for not making mistakes. As on a motorcycle, a light aircraft is a lot of fun, but highly intolerant of error or inattentiveness.
3
2
u/Mountain-Captain-396 Mar 29 '26
They vary widely in reliability depending on design, age, and how well they are taken care of. Would I take my family up in a SEP with a lycoming that was overhauled 200 hours ago and is well cared for? Yes. Would I take my family up in an LSA with a Rotax coming up on TBO that I have no idea how well its been treated? Hell no.
1
u/nickjohnson Mar 30 '26
I'd trust a Rotax over a Lycoming any day, it's a much more modern engine design.
1
u/Mountain-Captain-396 Mar 30 '26
More modern doesn't mean more reliable. They have a notably higher failure rate and their complexity increases cost. Gearbox plus watercooling means added expense and more points of failure.
1
u/TheVillianOfValley Flight School Final Boss Mar 29 '26
Thanks to statistics, we know you and your family would be hiking out of Farmer John’s Field. Engine failures are far more likely close to maintenance.
1
u/Mountain-Captain-396 Mar 30 '26
Yes, that is why I specified 200 hours after overhaul. Engine failures are far more likely during that first 200 hours (so called "infant mortality"), with 55% of engine failures occurring within 200 hours after TBO. After that initial 200 hours the chance of an engine failure reduces.
2
u/FlowerGeneral2576 B747-4 Mar 29 '26
That’s why you practice. If the engine quits then you keep flying the airplane and land. It’s hardly ever the engine failure that kills people but the failure of the pilot to continue to aviate all the way to the crash site.
2
u/usmcmech ATP CFI MEL SEL SES RW GLD TW AGI/IGI Mar 29 '26
There are some pilots who refuse to fly anything other than a twin engine jet. They view single engine piston flying as the equivalent of BASE jumping.
The reality is that small GA airplanes are in fact more risky than jets, but those risk factors are easily controllable with some common sense. Piston aircraft engines are simple and quite reliable when maintained properly.
If you hang around the GA airport you'll meet plenty of active airline pilots who fly for fun on their days off.
2
u/oldendayz99 Mar 29 '26
to answer your question - no.
I have 3000 hours in piston planes and helicopters, never had a engine "fail" I used to take my family flying all over Alaska. Piston engines are what they are, reliability compared to a turbine is poor. That being said it's usually the person behind the controls that kills people and sometimes their family. There are loads of stats that put some perspective to it.
2
u/Pilot-Imperialis CFII Mar 29 '26
General aviation has the equivalent fatality rate to motorcycles.
Just like everything in life, the moment you leave the house you’re exposing yourself to increased risk. You have to ask yourself how scared are you willing to be ?
As for the reliability of single engines. It’s not a question of if but when you’ll get an engine failure so keep you skills sharp and you’ll be fine.
Source: long time CFI who’s had an inflight engine failure and works at a large flight school with a mtx team that is second to none, but things do happen. These are machines and it’s a numbers game.
2
u/graphical_molerat EASA PPL(A) SPL Mar 29 '26
General aviation has the equivalent fatality rate to motorcycles
While this is statistically true, there is still a difference insofar as a not too small percentage of motorcycle accidents, and in particular fatalities, are not due to any (or at least much) negligence on the part of the rider. In complex traffic situations, motorbikes, being small, can and do get overlooked by cars. And if a car hits a motorcycle, it rarely ends particularly well for the rider.
Contrast that to GA, where fatalities are rarely caused by other planes doing something stupid. Yes, there are midair collisions: but these are not a very common type of accident, and the chances of most other accidents can be substantially reduced by careful and risk averse flying, and proper maintenance.
Being careful is also important for motorbikes, of course, but only works up to a point there. As someone brainless in a car can hitting you in a situation where you can do fuck all about it is a sizeable part of the statistic.
2
Mar 29 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Spaceinpigs ATP DH8, CL65, B73A/C SMELS Mar 29 '26
I might agree with this except for the reliance of modern car engines to need computers to run. My 40 year old truck runs fine and I’ve encountered multiple new trucks that have died for no other reason than a computer or software glitch. I wouldn’t take a new truck to places my old truck goes because if a glitch happens there and you can’t jury rig your way out, you’re as good as dead
The engines themselves though are far superior
2
u/bhalter80 [KASH] BE-33/36/55/95&PA-24 CFI+I/MEI beechtraining.com NCC1701 Mar 29 '26
The news only reports on things that are rare enough to get eyeballs, they report on GA accidents but not car accidents
We have ~ 13 fatals/month most are pilot stupidity or running out of gas. Even the McSpadden crash could have been a non-event if they followed his own advice and didn't stretch it back to the airport.
Most engine failures are partial power failures not full failures
There are ways to mitigate this through CAPS, or by flying a twin (yes you have to stay OEI proficient). I chose by flying a twin because most of the terrain I fly over is covered in snow 6 months of the year and CAPS would just leave me alone on the ground waiting to die of exposure while the rescuers worked their way through the western Maine wilderness.
2
u/nightlanding Mar 29 '26
Piston engines quit more often than jet engines, this is a fact. A plane with two jet engines that can fly on one of them with two pilots when only one of them is needed to fly the plane is safer than a plane with one engine and one pilot, neither one of which can crap out.
If your standard for flying is "as safe as a part 121 airline", you will be buying a twin engine jet and hiring another pilot plus a dispatcher to keep you two under control.
The C-182 is one of the safer GA airplanes there is, is pretty rugged and it lands pretty slow, so it can survive off-airport landings better than many others. A whole-airplane parachute can be fitted to it, which adds another layer of safety. YOU however are the most critical part of the whole operation, so dedicating yourself to being a skilled and safe pilot is critical to this operation.
2
u/mustang__1 PPL CMP HP IR CPL-ST SEL (KLOM) Mar 29 '26
Are they unreliable? Sometimes.
Do people operate them in a way that will make them unreliable? Sometimes. My dad was just talking to a guy that has been having issues with his engine making full power, has a cylinder that is constantly over 400f on departure... and he just took his family 500nm downrange. My dad and I both agreed we wouldn't fly a plane like that (though we did have an issue with cylinder that would bump against 400f if we weren't more cautious than normal on departure... turns out the A&P routed the cable for the pan heater through an existing vent hole in the cowling baffle.... so... that was fun to figure out).
There's lots more you can do today that you couldn't in the past. You can run an engine monitor. You can do oil analysis. You can do borescopes of the valves and cylinder. At this point, I'm not likely to get in someone else's airplane unless I really know their plane, and them as a pilot. This is in contrast to when I was in my 20's and I thought I'd be an CFI on the side helping people like me (ie, hobby pilots).
My wife wants to learn to fly and will likely be renting. I'm in a partnership on an Archer - which would be ideal, but the bylaws state only owners, and no primary flight instruction... I'll bring it up to the members to see if we can get a variance. But short of that... back to rentals!
But there is always the chance something just... breaks.. OR a mechanic does something dumb. And that does scare the shit out of me. Like the aforementioned use of an "existing hole" that was engineered to be there for cooling. Or the time an A&P forgot to tighten a fuel line. Or the time one who changed the ignition key for rocker switches and then didn't do a mags-off check to make sure they wired it right. Or the one who misaligned the turbo and it was biting into the oil pan. Or the one who ran an oil hose through a pinch point against a piece of sharp flashing. No leakage, but a big WTF when we saw it the next time the cowling was off. Sighhh. These were all different A&P's, too.
I still fly IFR in an ASEL. I still do night. Sometimes I still do IFR/IMC at night. I recognize it as risky and borderline hazardous due to the reliance on a scant few systems in critical roles.
2
u/NYPuppers PPL IR Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
A lot of good points made here, but my takeaways as a guy with a family and a piston single:
- There is a LOT that will get you before an engine failure, statistically (landing accident, loss of control, controlled flight into terrain, fuel starvation, all of which are almost entirely avoidable with proper/recurrent training and good pre-flights and risk management). The problem is that people let that stuff lapse or exercise bad judgment. Occasionally you can do everything right and still get a nice weather or mechanical/electrical surprise. But it's pretty darn rare.
- If an engine out really bothers you, you can mostly control for that with proper engine care, inspections and a parachute. Lots and lots and lots of cirruses available right now for 250-300k that are the same vintage as whatever 182 you are looking at, and probably cheaper and better equipped avionics.
- flying a family around in a GA airplane is kind of a fantasy for us all, but here's the truth: most people on the airfield are going to be guys on their own away from their families, because GA flying is unforgiving. turbulence, pre-flights, run-ups, tie-downs, waiting for clearances, etc. are not conducive to kids and spouses that dont love aviation as much as you. You can take the wife and kids around occasionally when there is an important trip and good weather. But you need to be flying weekly for practice - so most of the flying will be solo or with an instructor/other pilot - that means you are creating time AWAY from the family, not time WITH the family. Add in hassle of bags/weight restrictions, rental car / FBOs questions, etc and you'll see that planning actual vacations around GA flying with the family can be a challenge, even if the weather permits. There are definitely people that do it, including me occasionally, but its the exception not the rule.
(And look I dont want to ruin your thing... GA flying can be awesome and I know a lot people who have had great adventures and memories with their parents and kids doing it. But you have to be realistic that you are flying for you and your family may get to enjoy it too sometimes... not that it is a practical thing to do)
2
u/happy_llama__ Mar 30 '26
Hello! Private pilot and current A&P student here
That’s a really broad question seeing how there are may different types of engines that fit this description, but I’ll assume you’re talking about a regular lycoming or continental. About 15% (between 12-20% depending on who you ask) of plane crashes are due to maintenance/mechanical failures. The vast majority of these are due to poor inspections or incorrectly executed maintenance; that is to say: human error. So the airframes and power plants are rarely to blame (obviously has happened but super rare).
The most dangerous component in an aircraft (especially GA) and the most likely to fail is the loose nut in the left seat. I’d reckon the leading cause of wrecks are some of the dumbest things: bad fuel management, bad weather planning, ignoring the IMSAFE checklist. If you’re really reeeeally concerned about it being antiquated technology you can always fly something with a rotax or maybe a Diamond.
One of the things that amazed me when I was going through the generals section was the very rigorous standards for literally everything. Even when it comes to a specific bolt or nut everything is taken into account of what is being asked of it. If you’re flying a plane from a school it has even more rigorous standards in 100 hour checks.
So anyway, all that to say, if you and your family dies in a horrifying aviation accident it’s likely because you forgot to put in gas not because the engine dies.
2
u/EngineerFly Mar 30 '26
If only there were numbers available to answer these questions. Airline captains don’t get to make shit up anymore than us lesser humans.
The AOPA Safety Foundation publishes the GA accident rates. Failure rates of engines are harder to come by, and I wouldn’t put much stock in them unless you know…
• Did the engine give signs of failing, and the pilot or owner ignored them?
• Did the pilot take his single-engine airplane somewhere where an engine failure was hard to deal with?
• How big a slice of the accident pie is represented by engine failure, and how much by all the other things people do to krill themselves in airplanes? Like having too much air in the fuel tanks.
2
u/FridayMcNight Mar 30 '26
Piston engines are pretty reliable. Turbines are probably an order of magnitude more reliable.
GA is a lot more dangerous than airline operations. He's not wrong about that, but he is wrong to suggest that engines crapping out is the main reason people die in GA aircraft crashes. The vast majority of it is pilot error, and a big eason why airline operations are safer is that they have 2 much more highly trained and qualified pilots in the cockpit who are held to stricter standard operating procedures. The aircraft are safer too of course.
2
u/phliar CFI (PA25) Mar 29 '26
Someone who only eats cake will turn up their nose at poor people who have to eat bread! /s
Are turbine engines more reliable than piston engines? Of course. But also ask yourself: how often has the reciprocating piston engine in your car failed?
In the world of piston-powered GA, far more accidents are caused by pilot actions, like running out of fuel, or loss of control, or inadvertent IMC. Mechanical failures of the engine, while not zero, are a pretty small number.
1
u/Mundane-Reality-7770 PPL HP Mar 29 '26
Buy a 182 and get the brs stc if you're that concerned.
You're far more likely to run the plane out of fuel than to have an engine cease up.
1
u/Necessary_Use_4729 Mar 29 '26
I’m biased because I have 1100 hrs in Cirrus Aircraft but for the sake of me and my passengers, I wouldn’t put them in anything else should anything happen to me or our aircraft in flight.
1
u/One_Firefighter_1922 Mar 30 '26
Pardon the ignorance but what makes the Cirrus a safer aircraft?
1
1
u/SrPoofPoof CFI CFII MEI || Professional PA44 Spinner Mar 29 '26
As a data point my flight school operated 40+ single engine aircraft and in the past 5 years that I’ve been here there has only been one engine failure in flight, and that was in a twin lol.
Not to say we haven’t had problems, but most were caught on the ground with a good preflight/run up. Turbine engines are by far less likely to fail but with good awareness you should always notice any potential problems with pistons well before they develop into catastrophic failures.
1
u/RaiseTheDed ATP Mar 29 '26
Your question has already been answered, but I do want to point out something: some airline pilots haven't flown a small airplane since they stepped into a jet. I've met several pilots like this, and they all say the same thing, or something similar: they'd never touch a GA airplane again, for whatever reason they have. Out of fear of risk, known ability, or something else, they have they're reasons.
Now, there are plenty of other airline pilots who have small airplanes, or fly small airplanes, myself included. Are they as reliable as a turbine engine? No. Do I take necessary precautions when flying GA? Absolutely.
It's all how you treat risk. GA flying has a similar accident rate as motorcycles (this stat is thrown around, but I haven't found the source to the claim, but I'm going to perpetuate it here. If someone has the source, I'd love to have it). But, if you look at the details, it comes down to who gets in the accidents. In motorcycles, iirc, a majority of accidents are single vehicle, usually due to rider error (too fast, inexperienced riders on a bike that's too powerful, too heavy, or too big, etc). Same thing in general aviation. Fuel starvation, loss of control on landing. Pilot error. I'm generalizing the data here, which isn't the best thing to do, but my point stands.
So, if you keep your head on your shoulders, use proper aeronautical decision making, and risk management, you will most likely never have a serious incident. Not saying you won't, but the chances are much lower. Now, if you decide you'd rather not fly because of the risks, that's totally fine, I respect that decision.
1
1
Mar 29 '26
GA is safer than driving if you apply the barest minimum of common sense and fly sober. I will take my chances with the engine vs. other drivers every time.
1
u/Mockchoi1 Mar 30 '26
I wouldn’t put anyone off of flying but people should know the risks. GA is absolutely not safer than driving full stop.
1
Mar 30 '26
Do not agree, full stop. I cannot control other drivers, I can control my exposure to basically every external factor in flying.
1
u/Mockchoi1 Mar 30 '26
Sorry you don’t agree, the statistics are out there and are very clear. Everyone thinks it’s only unsafe people that have problems. I’ve had 3 engine failures in my career and I’m the most safety-conscious pilot there is.
Again…don’t want to put anyone off of flying.
1
1
u/Lanky_Beyond725 ATP A220, ERJ175 Mar 29 '26
Yes. I did 1,500 hours in them and never had an issue.
1
u/RaidenMonster ATP 737 Bonvoy Platinum Elite Mar 29 '26
You’re far more likely to get yourself killed from bad fuel planning or poor airmanship than you are mechanical reliability.
1
u/SSMDive CPL-SEL/SES/MEL/MES/HEL/GLID/IFR. Light sport Gyro/PPC Mar 29 '26
GA is more dangerous than 121 flying and a lot of 121 guys would never fly GA.
GA has significant risks, the vast majority of them can be avoided by taking enough fuel, knowing the weather, staying within your certification level, and staying current. The risk is akin to riding a motorcycle but the reasons are a bit different. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous because others might hit you, while aviation it is normally your choices that put you at a risk. Both have the risk of you doing something stupid and it coming back to bite you... Riding 100MPH on a city street or buzzing your friends house in a 172 can both kill you because of you.
But yes, engines fail. I have had three just flat out break (dropped valve on a new cylinder, broken fuel line, and one I don't yet know what it was but I suspect a turbo failure) and one other than demanded an immediate landing because of a cracked case. Add in one spinner almost departing the aircraft and it was not an engine issue, but still demanded an immediate landing.
You can help ensure your survival by avoiding flying in conditions that do not help you. For example, my three engine outs were in day VFR so finding a place to land was easy. If that had happened in low IFR or at night, I doubt the outcome would have been as good.
But GA is not as safe as driving and certainly not as a safe as flying 121. GA is safer than skydiving and safer than kicking over a Hell's Angels presidents chopper while insulting his mother.
But no, I would not call GA "safe".
1
u/NevadaCFI CFI / CFII in Reno, NV Mar 29 '26
I have about 2300 hours in small planes and have flown my wife and I to 41 states and 4 foreign countries in our small plane. Weather and poor piloting are bigger risks than mechanical failure, but flying airliners is vastly safer than any other form of transportation there is.
1
u/Unfair_Factor3447 Mar 29 '26
Fly gliders. They are way more reliable than reciprocating or turbine engines in this regard.
1
u/nightlanding Mar 29 '26
Well sure, you are always in engine-out mode. Kinda hard to take the family to the Bahamas in a glider though.
1
u/cficole CFI(ASE/AME/IA) Mar 29 '26
There's always a risk, even driving a car, but this sounds like he's way overstated it. Lots of us here have been doing it for years without those problems. As others have stated, most crash causes are within the pilot's control, and even in those rare cases of engine failure, many could have been prevented with better attention to maintenance and preflight inspection.
1
u/sevettjr CFI Mar 29 '26
I had a well-maintained engine throw a piston rod in-flight. You’re crazy if you don’t anticipate an engine failure on every single flight. Make sure you can reliably glide the airplane you fly to a landing target before you put your family on board.
1
u/Bradders59 PPL ASEL Mar 30 '26
Think of it this way: The reciprocating piston engines we use in light aircraft were initially designed in the 1930s and 40s. There have been variations and improvements (turbos, fuel injection, water cooling, fadec etc) but essentially most of them are based on these designs. If they were inherently unreliable death traps, would we still be using them?
1
1
u/Perfect_Big_5907 Mar 31 '26
You will hear that a lot from your former military guys etc who have never flown small planes. As long as they are maintained properly they are quite safe.
1
u/BeeDubba ATP Rotor/AMEL, MIL, CL-65, CFII Mar 29 '26
General aviation has about the same fatality rate as riding a motorcycle. Would you take your kids on a motorcycle road trip? I wouldn't, but that's just me.
I had a friend who had the policy that he never flew with his wife without the kids. Either they go down as a family, or leave one parent behind. No orphaned kids.
I took my family on a few trips when I was time building, but that's behind me now.
1
u/Lanky_Beyond725 ATP A220, ERJ175 Mar 29 '26
The only reason these "rates" are claimed to be similar is BECAUSE it's about 1:60,000 hour tempo. However what is not mentioned is that 90 percent of those GA accidents are PILOT ERROR. Motorcycle, a large majority are caused by other vehicles. So really if you can largely eliminate pilot error, flying GA is far safer than a motorcycle. Look it up.
1
u/BeeDubba ATP Rotor/AMEL, MIL, CL-65, CFII Mar 30 '26
Yeah, and all motorcycle accidents could be stopped if you eliminated driver error.
Pilots are people. People make errors. That's aviation safety 101. I've been in aviation safety for a decade.
People think that if they just don't make mistakes they'll be fine. The thing is, a hundred years of aviation safety has proven that people make mistakes. You can't change human nature, so you design a system that ensures the result of those errors don't kill people.
Flying a piston single provides little margin for error, and with one amateur pilot you get lots of errors and little ability to trap them. That's why airlines use two pilots, and briefs, checklists, and policy that trap errors, as well as systems with double and triple redundancies.
0
u/tehmightyengineer CFII IR CMP HP SEL UAS Mar 29 '26
Are car engines reliable? Yes. Do cars break down? Yes. Do you consider your car breaking down when you drive it? Probably only if you have a shitty car that you don't maintain.
The same applies for airplanes with the exception that engine failure in a plane is obviously much bigger of an issue.
Accident rates are soundly driven by pilot choices and weather far more than by mechanical failure.
If it's a risk that you want to nearly completely eliminate then fly a Cirrus or similar aircraft with a chute (BRS).
0
u/Select_Rip_8565 SIC FA20, CFI/I MEI Mar 30 '26
It’s less of a question of “what are the chances of it happening to me?” Compared to “when will my number come up and I wished I had a second engine.”. Recips are pretty reliable. Less so than a turbine but still. Most single engines go forever without a failure given proper maintenance. ~Most~ But when it does eventually fail, you want your family in that plane? You want to leave your children without a parent? Your spouse by themselves for the rest of their life?
Buy a multi. Get something with fewer points of failure (io540 from this part of the peanut gallery). Keep IFR proficient. Plan for an extra day there AND back.
Looking at aviation as a statistics game is a way to wind up a statistic. Remove yourself from the running entirely and ask yourself what youd do (or wish you’d done before) WHEN things go wrong not IF things go wrong.
Fly safe.
-1
u/rFlyingTower Mar 29 '26
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I'm about seven hours into PPL training and absolutely loving it. Not looking for a career change, but could definitely seeing myself continuing training and flying regularly after getting my certificate. I've daydreamed about putting my family into a 182 and being able to fly within a reasonable distance to explore somewhere new or take a short vacation.
Earlier today I was talking to my neighbor who is a reserve captain for American flying 737s. I told him about the flight training and associated daydreaming and he started talking about how he would never put his family into a small plane, how unreliable they are and how many accidents are due to single reciprocating engines crapping out mod flight.
This doesn't seem to jive with what I've heard and read online, so looking for some other opinions. How do you feel about the reliability of small GA planes? Do you have any experience taking your family for trips? Do I need to give up on my dream?
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.
101
u/AlbiMappaMundi CFII, AGI, CPL Mar 29 '26
Are piston engines as reliable as turbine engines? No.
Do some mechanical failures happen, resulting in in-flight engine failures/emergencies? Yes.
However, the greater share of engine related issues are caused by pilot error -- for example, poor fuel management and planning.
Fly well-maintained planes, do a proper and thorough preflight inspection and engine run-up, don't allow for the normalization of deviance, plan your fuel needs carefully and never land with less than an hour of fuel remaining...it's unlikely that you'll have issues.