Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2086401@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.150.29.112; envelope-from=n103md@yahoo.com
Subject: Hickman's Accident: NTSB Probable Cause Report
From: "bob mackey" <n103md@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal

Dave Hickman's fatal accident remains a tragedy.
With better training or skills, perhaps it would have
been an "ordinary" engine out landing instead of a
stall and uncontrolled descent.

Why did the engine quit? If in fact selecting the high-boost
switch caused the engine to flood and stop producing power,
then there is a serious flaw in the fuel injection system
of that particular engine and airframe.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again...
If varying the input fuel pressure (within a reasonable range)
to the engine changes the fuel flow, then the fuel flow regulation
system is flawed. In this case, you could say fatally flawed.

The fuel flow should be determined by the mass airflow and the
mixture setting. Not by which fuel pumps are on.
If the fuel pumps in the system can exceed the pressures that
the injection system is able to regulate, then those pumps should
be removed. It's not just a matter of switch placement. There should
be no auxiliary controls in the cockpit that cause the engine to quit
working. The primary engine controls (e.g. magneto switch, fuel cutoff)
are all the only ones that should stop the engine.

If I needed a big 6-cylinder engine for my aircraft, I would not
choose a fuel-injected Continental.