Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned? [Archive]

Bob Gardner

October 22nd 06, 12:24 AM

NTSB reports do not reflect the ownership status, only the FAR under which
the flight was being conducted. But you knew that.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly than
> owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I used to
> fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often abused and
> ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Emily

October 22nd 06, 12:31 AM

Brad[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 01:27 AM

On Oct 21, 7:31 pm, Emily > wrote:
> Interesting. I don't have any studies, but from a strictly maintenance
> standpoint, I see things completely opposite. Every single rental
> aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
> qualified mechanics with factory training. I'm picky about what I fly.
>
> Some of the owners I know? They just go out and do whatever to their
> airplanes, legal/safe or not. It's the "it's my plane, I can do what I
> want to it" mentality.

I'd agree. I've flown plenty of rental and "Working" planes, and while
they are ugly to look at (torn up interiors, chipped paint, etc.) they
tend to be generally well maintained underneath. Required 100 hour
inspections mean that cables, spars, etc. are getting looked at as much
as once a month or two rather than once a year. My experience has been
that Owner/pilots are more likely to cut corners on maintenance issues
that they do not see as a safety issue.

The reality is however, that maintenance induce accidents are
relatively rare. If there is a statistic significant increase in the
accident rate for rentals, its likely due to the comparably less
proficiency that renters have compared to owners. I'd venture to guess
that in the broad scheme of things, the accident rate for rentals is
likely lower as high insurance rates and renter requirements discourage
flight schools from putting more accident-prone aircraft on the rental
line.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

October 22nd 06, 01:57 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?

I don't know of any statistically valid studies. From my own experience, I
believe the local fatalities have been 3:1 owners to renters. My pet theory is
that it has to do with more exposure as an owner. Renters tend to fly less.

As an aside, I don't recall any of the local GA fatalities were caused by
mechanical deficiencies. They seemed to be either weather or health related
instead.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Sylvain

October 22nd 06, 02:35 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?

it might actually be difficult to make comparisons because I would
guess -- i.e., this is not based on any numbers/evidences, just
wild speculations -- that privately owned aircraft are used quite
differently from rentals; for instance, I would imagine that
the former are used more for travels and the latter more for
training for instance...

--Sylvain

Emily

October 22nd 06, 02:50 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
>> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
>> have been done in this regard?
>
>
> I don't know of any statistically valid studies. From my own experience, I
> believe the local fatalities have been 3:1 owners to renters. My pet theory is
> that it has to do with more exposure as an owner. Renters tend to fly less.

Yes, a renter might fly less, but what about a rental aircraft?

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 04:08 AM

On 21 Oct 2006 15:45:58 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly than
> owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I used to
> fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often abused and
> ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?

It's not that easy to compile accurately, I think. The NTSB accident summaries
do include the owner and operator names, and has a "Oper_same" column, but
there's no way to really tell the relationship of the pilot to the owner. If
the pilot was "Joe Smith" and the owner is listed as "ABC Investments," was the
plane rented or did the pilot just operate it as a corporation for tax purposes?
If the "Oper_Same" flag is "N", was it rented or was it borrowed from a friend?

Certainly there are some owners who keep their airplanes in much better shape
than the average rental hack. But then, there are owners who cut corners and
defer repairs.

I have run a couple of analyses of NTSB data to investigate homebuilt aircraft
accident statistics. For these, I use a combination of Cessna 172s/210s as a
control group (leaving out the 172s involved in training accidents). During the
2002-2004 period, about 20% of the 172/210 group accidents were due to some sort
of mechanical problem, including faulty maintenance. But a third of those were
"unexplained engine failures" that might have been due to the pilot.

All boiled down, between 70% and 80% of the accidents had nothing to do with who
actually owned the airplane...the pilot goofed up. Perhaps some of the
remainder crashed because they were rental birds in poor condition, but the raw
number is not likely to be statistically significant. Convincing pilots to NOT
run their gas tanks dry would save more lives than tightening FBO maintenance
oversight.

It's interesting to note that I've seen the same argument made for
homebuilts...that homebuilt owners take better care of their airplanes. The
statistics don't bear that out. Homebuilts (which, it must be pointed out, are
generally manufactured *and* maintained by amateurs) have a mechanical-failure
accident rate about 50% higher than my C-172/210 control group.

Ron Wanttaja

Dudley Henriques

October 22nd 06, 04:27 AM

This is a tough one Jay. I don't have figure 1 on this, but from personal
experience through the years I've seen it both ways. I've seen operations
that maintained their airplanes like a Swiss watch and many I wouldn't touch
with a 10 foot pole. I've seen owners who maintained perfectly and owners
whose airplanes I absolutely would not fly.
I think a useful and plausible answer to this one is going to be tough to
nail down.
Dudley

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly than
> owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I used to
> fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often abused and
> ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Andrew Gideon

October 22nd 06, 04:33 AM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:27:47 -0700, Brad wrote:

> I'd agree. I've flown plenty of rental and "Working" planes, and while
> they are ugly to look at (torn up interiors, chipped paint, etc.) they
> tend to be generally well maintained underneath. Required 100 hour
> inspections mean that cables, spars, etc. are getting looked at as much as
> once a month or two rather than once a year. My experience has been that
> Owner/pilots are more likely to cut corners on maintenance issues that
> they do not see as a safety issue.

I'd say that the bag is mixed on both sides. During my PPL training, the
aircraft were in a state that would - had I known what I know now - worry
me. It's very possible that all the flaws I saw were all there were to
see, and that the actual underlying MX was flawless. But how would I know?

Another FBO on the same field had newer and better maintained airplanes.
On the other hand, how do I know that all the effort wasn't spent on
keeping the plane looking good, with corners cut underneath? I don't.

Still, I could easily see one shop taking MX more seriously than the
other. Sure, the rentals are required to have 100 hour inspections. But,
as far as I recall, there's no requirement for (for example) oil analysis.
So there's room for "good MX" and "bad MX".

I'm sensitive to that at the moment as that analysis just told us of a
possible problem in one engine in the partnership to which I belong. The
question arose: were we safer in that airplane (where all MX people,
including Mattituck, said that the proper response was to fly it for 15
hours and then recheck, but for one A&P who said that the
200-hour-over-TBO engine should be overhauled immediately) or in a rental
airplane that wasn't given oil analysis.

After all, if we did do the analysis we'd not know about the copper in the
oil. So who can tell about the engines on the rental fleet?

- Andrew

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 05:18 AM

> Interesting. I don't have any studies, but from a strictly maintenance
> standpoint, I see things completely opposite. Every single rental
> aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
> qualified mechanics with factory training. I'm picky about what I fly.

Well, with FBOs hurting to make a penny, I can vouch for the fact that
they sometimes cut corners on maintenance to "keep 'em flying".

My '75 Warrior was such a bird. This was my first plane, back in '98,
and I bought it from a Wisconsin FBO who (unbeknownst to me at the
time) was in the process of going belly up. We found all sorts of
things wrong at the first annual, but the one that blew me away (and
could have killed me) was the fact that they had not installed the
proper length push-rods after replacing a cylinder.

When the cylinder failed (again) after less than 100 hours, my mechanic
found that that FBO simply had omitted the rotator cap, to make the
(too long) push rod work.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but I flew all sorts of rental
birds before then that were, well, rough. Knowing what I know now,
there are at least two that I should have refused to fly -- but I was
inexperienced with maintenance matters, as are most renters. When
you're a renter, you write stuff on a squawk sheet (if there *is* a
squawk sheet), and hope for the best, never knowing what (if anything)
is actually done.

I've had throttle cables break on rentals, I've had doors not latch,
I've experienced TWO complete electrical failures (in two different
planes, from two different FBOs), and I once drained over a QUART of
water from the tanks of a rental Cherokee.

As for owners who cut corners, I guess it depends on what you mean by a
"corner." If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
"aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner. I'm sure they're
out there, but I haven't met them.

I suppose there is no way to glean any kind of valid information from
the accident reports, but it sure seems like the rental fleet in some
markets is, at best, suspect.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Emily

October 22nd 06, 05:46 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
<snip>
>If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that.
Well, that's illegal. And I'm coming from a work standpoint here, but
you don't see mechanics doing that on transport catergory aircraft and
engines. Why should GA owners feel they are exempt from the same rules?
And I'll stop there before it turns into an EAA rant.

>but it sure seems like the rental fleet in some
> markets is, at best, suspect.
Maybe I've just had good luck, but I've never seen it.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 08:31 AM

Emily writes:

> Every single rental
> aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
> qualified mechanics with factory training.

But who knows where those aircraft have been, and how pilots have
treated them when away from the eyes of their owners? For example, an
airframe could be overstressed and not show any visible anomalies,
until it fails.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 08:35 AM

Jay Honeck writes:

> If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
> don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner.

Why wouldn't a light bulb be important for safety?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 08:37 AM

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I've seen operations
> that maintained their airplanes like a Swiss watch and many I wouldn't touch
> with a 10 foot pole. I've seen owners who maintained perfectly and owners
> whose airplanes I absolutely would not fly.

Is it a question of will, or a question of money?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 08:56 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:31:55 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Emily writes:
>
> > Every single rental
> > aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
> > qualified mechanics with factory training.
>
> But who knows where those aircraft have been, and how pilots have
> treated them when away from the eyes of their owners? For example, an
> airframe could be overstressed and not show any visible anomalies,
> until it fails.

Same argument could be made for *any* airplane...you don't know what the
previous owner did to it. But there are admittedly more people who have
previously flown a renter than a used plane. To quote myself, "Renting
airplanes is like renting sex: It's harder to arrange at short notice on
Saturday, you worry about what previous customers left for you, and someone is
always looking at their watch."

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 09:06 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:35:12 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
> > If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
> > "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
> > don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner.
>
> Why wouldn't a light bulb be important for safety?

Some are, some aren't. A landing light, for instance, is not required for night
flight. I've flown my plane at night, and it doesn't have one. Heck, it
doesn't have instrument lights, either... I used a chemlight.

If it *did* have a landing light, I'd feel no compunction about using a tractor
bulb instead. If one ain't required, there's no reason to get all formal about
it. It would at least feel at home with all the other "Aircraft and Tractor
Supply Company" and "Home Depot Aerospace" parts on board.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 09:27 AM

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Same argument could be made for *any* airplane...you don't know what the
> previous owner did to it.

If it has a previous owner ... but a brand-new plane does not.

> But there are admittedly more people who have previously flown
> a renter than a used plane.

If they are anything like rental cars or other rental equipment, they
may be in very sorry shape.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 09:48 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:27:39 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
> > Same argument could be made for *any* airplane...you don't know what the
> > previous owner did to it.
>
> If it has a previous owner ... but a brand-new plane does not.

The average General Aviation aircraft is more than 30 years old. A new plane
requires a cash outlay an order of magnitude higher. And *no* buyer is the very
first person to fly the aircraft. Not all ferry pilots are as genteel as
NW_Pilot. :-)

> > But there are admittedly more people who have previously flown
> > a renter than a used plane.
>
> If they are anything like rental cars or other rental equipment, they
> may be in very sorry shape.

With one exception, the rental cars I've driven have been in pristine shape,
compared to the clapped-out 172s I rent every two years for my BFR. I've never
had a rental car more than a year old, haven't had a rental airplane less than
ten years old for at least the last 20 years. My last two personal cars were
bought used from the rental agencies. Both went to 100K miles with few problems
(GM cars, even).

(The rental-car exception was a Toyota rented at a location which had mostly
gravel roads. The rental agreement required that I clean any blood out of the
trunk before turning it back in....no, it wasn't New Jersey :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Sylvain

October 22nd 06, 10:00 AM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Some are, some aren't. A landing light, for instance, is not required for
> night flight.

unless of course you are operating it for hire as required by
14 CFR 91.205(c)(4)

--Sylvain

Neil Gould

October 22nd 06, 01:45 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly
> than owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I
> used to fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often
> abused and ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?
>
I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.

The club that I belong to has around 15 planes, few of which would pass a
beauty contest. However, we also have 2 full-time mechanics, so squawks
are handled promptly and the regs are strictly adhered to. I feel quite
safe in these planes.

Neil

Neil

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 01:50 PM

> >If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
> > "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that.
> Well, that's illegal. And I'm coming from a work standpoint here, but
> you don't see mechanics doing that on transport catergory aircraft and
> engines. Why should GA owners feel they are exempt from the same rules?

I don't know any other way to say this: Because that FAA rule is
stupid.

A tractor light bulb that is identical to the one that says "aircraft
landing light" on it costs half as much, simply because the marketing
departments know they can double the price of anything that says
"aircraft" on it. Personally, I use the real deals (only because I
haven't found a tractor equivalent to the three Q4509 landing light
bulbs my plane uses), but I woudn't worry about an owner that buys NAPA
landing lights.

Now, of course, you have to exercise some degree of intelligence when
working on a plane that you own. For example, is it okay to run an
extension cord under the panel from your cigar lighter over to your
yoke-mounted GPS? If you zip tie the wires so that they're not a trip
hazard (and can't get fouled in the rudder pedals) does this then
become a "permanant installation", and thus become illegal for an owner
to do?

Most owners would say running an extension cord is fine. Some would
not.

Now, how about installing a power port in the back seat for the kids to
use? This means running the wires behind the side panels and carpet,
and installing a jack in the side wall. Most owners would draw the
line at that, and would have an A&P sign off on their work (or hire
them to do it) -- but is it REALLY any harder than running the
extension cord in my first example? Marginally -- but just about any
guy with any automotive experience could do it.

So owning becomes a judgement thing.

(An aside: What *is* the correct spelling of the word
"judgement/judgment" nowadays? The dictionary lists both spellings as
correct.)

Now take a rental plane. That plane is owned by...somebody, often not
by anyone who flies it regularly. That plane is seen as a commodity,
as a useful means to an end -- not as a pampered and loved magic
carpet. Suddenly all those "border-line legal" maintenance items are
going straight through to someone's bottom line -- you don't think
there's intense pressure to "skate" on some of them?

I approach aircraft in much the same way I approach property. With a
building, look at the gutters and down-spouts, and within seconds
you'll have a good idea how well the building has been maintained.
With aircraft, look at the leading edges of the wings. Are there two
years worth of bugs there? Is there old oil coating the nose gear?
That's potential trouble -- and virtually every rental plane I ever
flew fit that description.

I just don't believe rental planes are receiving the same level of
maintenance as owner-operated planes -- and you would *think* that we
could pull some meaningful statistics to prove (or disprove) this.
Where's "Flying's" Ricard Collins when we need him? This is right up
his alley...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 02:30 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Most owners would say running an extension cord is fine. Some would
> not.

To some extent, it depends on whether or not you carry passengers. I
don't see any problem with an owner doing anything if he's the only
person in the plane; if it crashes, chances are that he'll be the only
one to die. But if he takes on passengers, that's different. And if
he rents the plane out, that's different, too. In these latter cases,
I would expect regulations to be meticulously obeyed, and I'd hold the
owner liable if they were not, unless I released him from liability in
advance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 02:31 PM

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> The average General Aviation aircraft is more than 30 years old. A new plane
> requires a cash outlay an order of magnitude higher. And *no* buyer is the very
> first person to fly the aircraft. Not all ferry pilots are as genteel as
> NW_Pilot.

I'd fix that by riding with the ferry pilot, or by picking the plane
up myself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 03:10 PM

The pilot in command is responsible for the safety and status of the plane,
regardless of the owner. If you crash and die and the NTSB determines that
you did improper maintenance, your insurance would likely be voided for
flying an unairworthy plane. Your life insurance carrier may not decide to
pay if your death was the result of an "illegal" activity.

Rental planes generally require 100 hour inspections, but the PIC is still
responsible for the airworthiness.

Viperdoc[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 03:12 PM

This assumes that you are checked out in the plane, and that your insurance
company agrees. For many complex airplanes, companies might require 20-100
hours time in type, and 20 or more of dual instruction before being covered,
along with possibly an instructor sign-off. (an example is the Baron you
talk about)

Dale

October 22nd 06, 03:41 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
> are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
> suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
> they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.
>

Bwahahahahaha!!! That's pretty funny!! <G>

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 04:08 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote:
> The pilot in command is responsible for the safety and status of the plane,
> regardless of the owner. If you crash and die and the NTSB determines that
> you did improper maintenance, your insurance would likely be voided for
> flying an unairworthy plane. Your life insurance carrier may not decide to
> pay if your death was the result of an "illegal" activity.
>
> Rental planes generally require 100 hour inspections, but the PIC is still
> responsible for the airworthiness.

After working at a flight school for almost a year and owning my own
airplane for almost two, there are obvious things that a renter can find
in a preflight that would prevent the plane from being airworthy; but
there are also things that would prevent a plane from being airworthy
that a renter never sees. In the entire time I worked at the flight
school, not one renter ever asked to see the aircraft logbooks -- yes,
the times when the last MX/inspections were done were on the dispatch
sheet that the renter signed before taking the airplane, but ... just
because a plane has a 100-hr inspection sign-off doesn't necessarily
mean it is being "well-maintained". Some are, some aren't. Ask how the
FBO treats Service Bulletins; some feel if it isn't "required", they
don't have to do it. True in the legal sense, but would you rent from an
FBO with that mentality *if you knew about it*?

On the other hand, an owner can be as legal and meticulous about their
airplane MX as humanly possible, and some little, insignificant part can
still fail and bring the airplane down.

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 04:32 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> > I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
> > are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
> > suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
> > they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.

Dale > wrote:
> Bwahahahahaha!!! That's pretty funny!! <G>

Yeah, it's funny, but that *is* the prevailing *assumption* among
renters, and the FBOs bank on it.

john smith

October 22nd 06, 05:00 PM

The flying club I am a member of has 700+ members and 15 aircraft (+/-).
I have been a member of this same club for 25 years. In those 25 years,
I have had only two flights that I have cancelled and grounded the
aircraft.
One was a C182Q with high oil pressure. I knew something was wrong as I
flew this aircraft often and knew what was normal. The troubleshooting
in the shop found a cracked case.
The second aircraft I grounded was a PA28T-201RT (Turbo Arrow IV) which
backfired so badly during runup on the right mag I thought the engine
was going to come apart. The right mag was shot.
Other than those two instances, I have flown aircraft with intermittent
comm radios and panel lights that would not illuminate the gauge they
were attached to. Each of these was overcome with backup solutions
(second comm, EL rope).
The aircraft in my flying club are flown often by pilots with a full
range of experience. Between the instructors flying with the students
and the high time pilots mingling with the low time inexperienced
pilots, any mx squawks get picked up quickly.
The club is usually quick to take care of serious deficencies, although
the inoperative fuel gauge on one aircraft was deferred until the next
scheduled trip to the shop. This did cause me an actual pucker because I
lost track of time flown on that tank instead of watching the fuel
totalizer.

Spam Magnet

October 22nd 06, 05:02 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> The average General Aviation aircraft is more than 30 years old. A new plane
>> requires a cash outlay an order of magnitude higher. And *no* buyer is the very
>> first person to fly the aircraft. Not all ferry pilots are as genteel as
>> NW_Pilot.
>
>I'd fix that by riding with the ferry pilot,
>

How? By pulling a chair up next to him in front of the monitor?

Vaughn Simon

October 22nd 06, 05:08 PM

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, a renter might fly less, but what about a rental aircraft?

Bingo! Just using an airplane (or most any machine) regularly is better
for it than allowing it to rot unused. Having watched the tie-down area at my
local airport for decades now, I see no evidence that private owners maintain
their aircraft better than the FBOs maintain their rental fleets. I see dozens
of planes where I fly that seem to sit there forever without any use. Would you
rather fly the airplane that flies every day or the one that hasn't flown for
the last 90 days? I don't like feeling like a test pilot!

Would I rather fly a low-time, hangered, meticulously maintained, privately
owned, pampered pet of an airplane rather than an FBO rental beater? Damn right
I would! Any offers?

Vaughn

nrp

October 22nd 06, 05:17 PM

Only 7 % of my total time is in rental aircraft, & the rest in club or
personally owned A/C. All 3 of the rough mags were in rentals. I
think there is greater variability in owner maintained fleets, with
mediocre but more consistent maintenance in the rental fleet.

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 05:32 PM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
> Bingo! Just using an airplane (or most any machine) regularly is better
> for it than allowing it to rot unused. Having watched the tie-down area at
> my local airport for decades now, I see no evidence that private owners maintain
> their aircraft better than the FBOs maintain their rental fleets. I see dozens
> of planes where I fly that seem to sit there forever without any use. Would
> you rather fly the airplane that flies every day or the one that hasn't flown for
> the last 90 days? I don't like feeling like a test pilot!

At our airport, there's a marked difference in how owners of planes at
tiedowns maintain their aircraft vs. owners of planes *in hangars*.
That's not to say *some* of those at tiedowns are not well maintained,
but you do see many that have obviously been parked and sitting for WAY
too long w/o being flown.

Emily

October 22nd 06, 06:14 PM

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:31:55 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Emily writes:
>>
>>> Every single rental
>>> aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
>>> qualified mechanics with factory training.
>> But who knows where those aircraft have been, and how pilots have
>> treated them when away from the eyes of their owners? For example, an
>> airframe could be overstressed and not show any visible anomalies,
>> until it fails.

Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.

Emily

October 22nd 06, 06:16 PM

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:35:12 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
>>> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
>>> don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner.
>> Why wouldn't a light bulb be important for safety?

Please read up on hazardous attitudes. Just because YOU don't think
it's important doesn't mean you can break a regulation and install the
incorrect bulb. Hardly something I'd expct you to understand.

Emily

October 22nd 06, 06:30 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
>>> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that.
>> Well, that's illegal. And I'm coming from a work standpoint here, but
>> you don't see mechanics doing that on transport catergory aircraft and
>> engines. Why should GA owners feel they are exempt from the same rules?
>
> I don't know any other way to say this: Because that FAA rule is
> stupid.
Anti-authority, anyone? It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid, it's
not an excuse for breaking it. Not to be dramatic, but do you think
having a DH on an approach is stupid? A pilot who will break a
seemingly pointless rule shows a lack of judgment and will eventually
decided he doesn't need to follow other regulations.

And frankly, it's not stupid. A tractor bulb is an unapproved part. If
you want proof a bulb is important, I know a DAR whose PMI allows him to
issue export 8130's on bulbs...because the PMI believes they are
critical to safety (that's not the exact definition, but I can't
remember what it is without digging up the order).

> So owning becomes a judgement thing.
I don't believe it's a judgment thing. I believe it's a following the
FAR's and manufacturer's manuals thing. The manuals and FAR's CLEARLY
spell out maintenance to be performed and do not leave any room for
judgment.

> (An aside: What *is* the correct spelling of the word
> "judgement/judgment" nowadays? The dictionary lists both spellings as
> correct.)
Dunno, spell checked flagged mine and yours above, which is strange.

> Now take a rental plane. That plane is owned by...somebody, often not
> by anyone who flies it regularly. That plane is seen as a commodity,
> as a useful means to an end -- not as a pampered and loved magic
> carpet.
You're kidding me, right? You're actually saying that those of us who
rent love an airplane less than those of us who own one? That's just
not true. I have had students who own and students who rent, so I've
see this from both sides and your above view is just totally false. The
pilots who take risks and treat aircraft like crap are going to do it
whether or not they own or rent. It has 100% to do with the pilot and
not the airplane.

Suddenly all those "border-line legal" maintenance items are
> going straight through to someone's bottom line -- you don't think
> there's intense pressure to "skate" on some of them?
No, I don't. And if there is, it has to do with the personality of the
mechanic. A mechanic who skirts corners is going to do the same whether
he works on a rental or an aircraft that someone else owns.

> With aircraft, look at the leading edges of the wings. Are there two
> years worth of bugs there? Is there old oil coating the nose gear?
> That's potential trouble -- and virtually every rental plane I ever
> flew fit that description.
I don't know where you're renting airplanes, then.

> I just don't believe rental planes are receiving the same level of
> maintenance as owner-operated planes
You're believing wrong, then. Most rental aircraft are actually being
maintained IAW with FAR's, something I can't say for owned aircraft.
Owners think they are above the law, and while they don't think they are
taking safety shortcuts, most of the time they aren't knowledgeable to
know the difference.

FInally, as has been pointed out, maintenance mistakes contribute to
VERY few fatal accidents and that IS documented.

Emily

October 22nd 06, 06:32 PM

wrote:
>snip>

>ssk how the FBO treats Service Bulletins; some feel if it isn't "required", they
> don't have to do it. True in the legal sense, but would you rent from an
> FBO with that mentality *if you knew about it*?
SB's really aren't a good indicator of quality of maintenance. Some of
them are "mandatory" and yes, it's good to do them, but some are
"optional" and really don't do anything for you except send money back
to the manufacturer.

> On the other hand, an owner can be as legal and meticulous about their
> airplane MX as humanly possible
Most aren't.

Emily

October 22nd 06, 06:34 PM

wrote:

> At our airport, there's a marked difference in how owners of planes at
> tiedowns maintain their aircraft vs. owners of planes *in hangars*.
Airplanes in hangars sit just as long. I'm sure you know what that does
to an engine.

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 06:37 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:31:29 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
> > The average General Aviation aircraft is more than 30 years old. A new plane
> > requires a cash outlay an order of magnitude higher. And *no* buyer is the very
> > first person to fly the aircraft. Not all ferry pilots are as genteel as
> > NW_Pilot.
>
> I'd fix that by riding with the ferry pilot, or by picking the plane
> up myself.

If you bought a new 172, the plane would require a special waiver to have
long-range fuel tanks installed and flown across the Atlantic to France. The
waiver wouldn't allow the ferry pilot to carry a passenger...and it would take
you a long, long time to get qualified to make the flight yourself.

And they're still not going to let you climb in at the exit point of the
assembly line and be the first person to fly the airplane....

Ron Wanttaja

Dave Stadt

October 22nd 06, 07:37 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> This assumes that you are checked out in the plane, and that your
> insurance company agrees. For many complex airplanes, companies might
> require 20-100 hours time in type, and 20 or more of dual instruction
> before being covered, along with possibly an instructor sign-off. (an
> example is the Baron you talk about)

I don't think insurance companies require a check-out for airplanes that
come in a box and plug into the wall.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 07:43 PM

Emily writes:

> >> Why wouldn't a light bulb be important for safety?
>
> Please read up on hazardous attitudes. Just because YOU don't think
> it's important doesn't mean you can break a regulation and install the
> incorrect bulb. Hardly something I'd expct you to understand.

Please go back and read what I actually wrote (and you backquoted,
right there, above). In the meantime, I find your reply very amusing!

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 07:45 PM

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> If you bought a new 172, the plane would require a special waiver to have
> long-range fuel tanks installed and flown across the Atlantic to France.

Are there no ships these days?

Anyway, I'd surely not be buying one in France. And it would probably
be a Beechcraft rather than a Cessna, although I suppose the same
problem exists in any case.

> The waiver wouldn't allow the ferry pilot to carry a passenger...and
> it would take you a long, long time to get qualified to make the flight
> yourself.

Unless, of course, I already have that qualification.

But I think it would be simpler to ship it by sea.

> And they're still not going to let you climb in at the exit point of the
> assembly line and be the first person to fly the airplane....

Why not?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 22nd 06, 07:45 PM

Emily writes:

> Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.

Examples?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Stadt

October 22nd 06, 07:51 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Emily writes:
>
>> Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.
>
> Examples?

The monitor and keyboard have cracks and the mouse ball is flat on one side.
Sure signs of overstress.

Neil Gould

October 22nd 06, 08:01 PM

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Emily writes:
>
>> Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.
>
> Examples?
>
(sigh)

Go the the airport and ask an A&P to show you some. That's one thing MSFS
*won't* do.

Neil

john smith

October 22nd 06, 08:02 PM

> > Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.

> Examples?

Wrinkles

Peter Clark

October 22nd 06, 08:13 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:45:34 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>> And they're still not going to let you climb in at the exit point of the
>> assembly line and be the first person to fly the airplane....
>
>Why not?

When assembly is complete the aircraft still doesn't have an
airworthiness certificate and won't until the FAA and factory
authorized test pilot has run the certification tests. IME, Cessna
singles, for example, generally run 7-10 hours of certification, test,
and fit&finish time on the hobbs at time of customer delivery at the
factory, which is when the final signoffs and log entries are made.

Ron Wanttaja

October 22nd 06, 08:18 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:45:34 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
> > If you bought a new 172, the plane would require a special waiver to have
> > long-range fuel tanks installed and flown across the Atlantic to France.
>
> Are there no ships these days?

In most cases, it's cheaper and quicker to ferry it. Don't know on 172-class
aircraft, though. In any case, you run the risks involved in getting damaged in
transit or faulty re-assembly. I'd rather trust a ferry pilot.

> > And they're still not going to let you climb in at the exit point of the
> > assembly line and be the first person to fly the airplane....
>
> Why not?

If you are a qualified test pilot and employed by the manufacturer, you can.
Otherwise, I'd say no. 14CFR 21.127 requires flight testing of
newly-manufactured aircraft in accordance with an approved production
flight-test procedure. I doubt the manufacturer's insurance policy will cover
flight testing by a non-employee.

Ron Wanttaja

Jose[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 09:00 PM

> If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
> don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner.

That's not a safety corner?

Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
approved part?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 09:56 PM

wrote:
> > At our airport, there's a marked difference in how owners of planes at
> > tiedowns maintain their aircraft vs. owners of planes *in hangars*.

Emily wrote:
> Airplanes in hangars sit just as long. I'm sure you know what that does
> to an engine.

Of course I do. Yes, some airplane in hangars just sit, also. *Overall*,
however, at least at MY home airport, nearly everyone I know with a
plane in a hangar is pretty darn meticulous about legal maintenance, and
most people are very good about networking that info with each other.

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 10:01 PM

> Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
> and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
> how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
> approved part?

Define "good".

If you mean "value for the dollar" good, well, obviously the
FAA-approved GE 4509 is the biggest rip-off on the market. It costs
twice as much as the equivalent tractor bulb.

If you mean "long life" good, Aviation Consumer magazine just did a
comparison, and the 4509 is not even close to being the longest-lasting
bulb. In fact, it didn't even make it to its measly 25-hour predicted
life.

If you mean "brighter" good, well, the two bulbs put out the same
lumens.

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 10:06 PM

wrote:
> >ssk how the FBO treats Service Bulletins; some feel if it isn't "required",
> >they don't have to do it. True in the legal sense, but would you rent
> >from an FBO with that mentality *if you knew about it*?

Emily:
> SB's really aren't a good indicator of quality of maintenance. Some of
> them are "mandatory" and yes, it's good to do them, but some are
> "optional" and really don't do anything for you except send money back
> to the manufacturer.

I know how Service Bulletins work. I never said they were an indicator
of anything. I was talking about the attitude that if it isn't required,
you don't have to "bother" with it.

> > On the other hand, an owner can be as legal and meticulous about their
> > airplane MX as humanly possible

Emily:
> Most aren't.

I know many of the other airplane owners at my home airport and at other
airports in this area. Yes, there are some exceptions, but *most are* at
the hangar several times/week, fly often, and certainly *are* as legal
and meticulous as possible. I'm sorry if people you know aren't, but
statements like "most aren't" is simply one opinion.

Peter Duniho

October 22nd 06, 10:18 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...]
> So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

One thing *I* would be concerned about with respect to ANY electrical part
is whether it will start burning.

Now, I admit that I don't know what the certification standards are for an
aviation-approved light bulb, but I would hope that at some point along the
way it involves various safety standards to ensure that not only will the
part work as intended, conforming to the original design of the aircraft,
but will also not compromise the safety of the aircraft.

If I'm out plowing my field or hauling bales of hay and the lightbulb in my
tractor explodes, no big deal. Hopefully it hasn't been a dry season, or
I'm not near my parched wheat fields. But in any case, I have a pretty good
chance of simply walking away without any trouble at all. It's a bit
different when you're airborne and something like that happens.

Now, it is true that in some cases an aviation-approved part is manufactured
right alongside non-approved parts. But the certification process is
applied differently, and you are paying for that. The cost of a part is
more than the R&D that went into making it and the cost to manufacture the
part, it's even more than those things and a fair retail markup. It also
includes all of the FAA-mandated procedures that provide a proveably safe
part (and yes, much of that is just paperwork, but that's how it goes when
complying with safety regulations).

Your tractor-"approved" part has none of the aircraft-related certification
applied to it, and so you have no way of knowing whether it does or does not
comply with the same safety standards that apply to aircraft-approved parts.

I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow about
your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur to
you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use, the
FAA actually considers the safety of that part.

If an owner has taken it upon themselves to not only have read and
understood exactly the certification standards that are applied to
aviation-approved parts, but has also done the necessary work to ensure that
an otherwise-unapproved part meets those standards, then I would say that
owner is still acting illegally if they install that part, but at least they
can still lay claim to being safety-minded. However, I doubt you've done
all of that, and neither would most of the rest of us. It is far more
convenient to let the FAA and the parts suppliers worry about all that, and
just pay the higher price for a part.

And yes, I agree that the FAA standards are probably not the end-all, be-all
when it comes to aircraft safety. But it does define a minimum bar that
aircraft are expected to meet, and it seems foolish to me to knowingly
ignore even that minimum bar.

Pete

Jose[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 10:23 PM

> So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

It doesn't really matter, unless you are writing the rules. In your
position, you only get to follow them (or not). Let's turn it around a
bit. You are thinking of buying an airplane, and you find that the
owner has declined to record his maintanance as required by the FAA.
This of course has no impact on safety, since it's just paperwork, and
the airplane flies just as well without that dumb bureaucrap. Of course
the landing light is the tractor bulb, and the stall switches (seven
hundred dollars from piper) were replaced with two dollar radio shack
switches when they failed. In fact, there are two in parallel, for
redundancy. One of the landing gear shocks turns out to be a truck
shock which the owner assures you is just as good.

The engine is just out of overhaul but the mechanic is at an airport a
hundred miles away. No problem - he fires up the plane and you both fly
there so you can speak to the mechanic. You fly this leg yourself, as a
test flight. He'll fly home (because he's paranoid about the dumb FAA
rules about sharing costs, so this makes it ok). While you're at the
shotp, he runs into a buddy who has a beer brewing hobby. So this pilot
samples a bit of his brew. Just a sip (maybe an ounce of beer). It's
not really a problem because you'll be talking to the mechanic for a
while, and by the time he gets back at the controls, it will be four
full hours, maybe more. The "eight hour bottle to throttle" rule is
stupid since it doesn't distinguish between a sip and a couple of
glasses. He's got a system where he's figured out a function of how
many ounces of beer he can have how many hours before flying - two hours
for a sip, four hours for half a glass - eight hours for one drink,
twelve hours for two drinks. It's lots more sensible than that hard and
fast FAA crap, since the FAA would let you fly eight hours after four
drinks if you weren't impaired. The FAA rules are for idiots who can't
figure this out.

So, you talk to his mechanic and he assures you that the engine is in
great shape, and shows you the oil analysis report. It =is= in great
shape according to that.

Five hours later he gets in the left seat, you get in the right seat,
and express some concern about his alcohol thing. "No problem, you can
be PIC", but I still have to fly the leg home. It's getting cloudy and
the return will be IFR.

He's rated. He's current and sharp. That is, he flies an hour on MSFS
every day practicing approaches. He has not done the FAA six in six in
a real airplane but he's sharper than most pilots who are "current".

On the way home the weather turns to crap, he's on top of it despite his
little sip of beer, and brings the thing down to minimums on a GPS
approach. No airport. The GPS shows he's right above the runway, so he
ducks down two hundred feet, finds the strip exactly where he said it
would be, flies a tight pattern and greases it in.

The DH is pretty high because of a large radio tower, but since he knows
where it is, he's comfortable going down another 250 feet if he has to.

Eagle flight needs pilots. Would you reccomend him?

You want to buy an airplane. Would you buy his?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 10:30 PM

> > I don't know any other way to say this: Because that FAA rule is
> > stupid.
> Anti-authority, anyone? It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid, it's
> not an excuse for breaking it. Not to be dramatic, but do you think
> having a DH on an approach is stupid?

Comparing silly landing light regulations with life-and-death flight
rules does little to further the discussion.

But back to the topic: I see plenty of owners dinking around with their
planes inside their hangars every weekend, checking this, straightening
that, making sure every zip tie and hose is perfect. Quite frankly,
pride in ownership is one of the three reasons that I think owning a
plane is worth every penny, and I've spent many happy hours in my
hangar doing nothing but polishing parts that no one else (but my
mechanic and me) will ever see.

During this quality time, I've occasionally found little maintenance
issues that would otherwise go unnoticed. I've found exhaust pipe
clamps loose, drippy hoses, and loose electrical connections while
farting around inside the engine compartment, and in each case I have
been able to rectify them BEFORE they became a maintenance problem.

This is unlikely to happen as a renter. Unlike John Smith's happy
situation (where he belongs to a club with 25 rental aircraft that are
meticulously maintained) around here the rentals are all either owned
by the FBOs, or they're put on "the line" as a lease-back aircraft.
Not only would you have difficulty finding a renter pilot who would be
willing to take the time to do this type of stuff, but the FBO rules
would most likely prohibit it from happening.

An example: When I was a renter, Mary and I had a favorite plane, a
sweet little Cherokee 140 with a fresh engine. After six months of
renting it, the thing was an absolutely cosmetic disaster, with bug
guts hardened on to all the leading edges, and topsoil pounded into the
carpet on the floor.

Knowing what a shoe-string budget the FBO was running on (they weren't
about to pay a line boy to clean it), we proposed doing a
"plane-washing party", where all the renters would come out and spend
an afternoon cleaning that poor old dawg. We even volunteered to
provide the beer, and do a cookout (remember, this was in Wisconsin,
where beer at the airport is not only okay, it's *expected*), as an
incentive to get renters to participate.

The idea was met with absolute incredulity from the other renters.
Their attitude was, quite simply, "Why would I work to clean someone
else's plane?" -- and that was that. There was no pride in the machine
-- it was just a tool that they were borrowing from someone else --
period.

Saying that this "not my problem" attitude isn't common among renters
flies in the face of my personal experience, which isn't to say that
there aren't exceptions to the rule. But, again, IMHO most rental
birds are "ridden hard and put away wet" -- and there should be some
way to quantify this when comparing accidents due to mechanical
failure, if only the FAA would track it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 10:39 PM

> > So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?
>
> It doesn't really matter, unless you are writing the rules. In your
> position, you only get to follow them (or not). Let's turn it around a
> bit.

<Big Snip of Fun Story>

I hate to waste such a great narrative, Jose, but your premise is so
overblown that I can't even address it. For you to equate my attitude
toward using an unapproved (but identical -- maybe even superior)
landing light bulb with the attitudes of an IFR pilot drinking and
doing an unapproved instrument approach is just goofy, and does nothing
to further this discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

October 22nd 06, 10:43 PM

> > So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

> I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow about
> your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur to
> you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use, the
> FAA actually considers the safety of that part.

Obviously when it comes to flight safety rules, FAA approval is
paramount on a certificated plane. But I wasn't talking about engines
or props here, Pete -- I was talking about a *landing light*.

Which, again, is pretty far afield from the topic of this thread. IMO,
rental planes are ridden hard and put away wet, compared to
owner-operated planes, and you would think there would be some way to
quantify this by examining accidents that were caused by mechanical
problems, if only the FAA/NTSB would ask the question.

Of course, in my experience the government is quite good at not asking
questions that they don't want answered.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Andrew Gideon

October 22nd 06, 10:59 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:32:46 -0700, Xmnushal8y wrote:

> Yeah, it's funny, but that *is* the prevailing *assumption* among renters,
> and the FBOs bank on it.

Pilots should be more aware of the regulations than this.

But, while I knew that the only difference between rental and owned was
the 100 hour, and I also knew that the only difference between the 100
hour and the annual was the IA signature, I didn't - until I became
involved in MX myself - know just how much was possible WRT MX that wasn't
required.

As I mentioned in another posting, oil analysis is a good example of a
useful "inspection" tool that's not required. Not knowing about this, one
wouldn't know to ask the FBO if it is being done.

So I can see how one could easily fall into this mistaken belief. I did.

And, for obvious reasons, I don't think we can presume that the FBOs are
going to ever get better about teaching this.

- Andrew

Jose[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 11:39 PM

> I hate to waste such a great narrative, Jose, but your premise is so
> overblown that I can't even address it. For you to equate my attitude
> toward using an unapproved (but identical -- maybe even superior)
> landing light bulb with the attitudes of an IFR pilot drinking and
> doing an unapproved instrument approach is just goofy, and does nothing
> to further this discussion.

You see, I disagree with that assessment.

And besides, you miss the point. He only drank a little bit. He knows
the FAA is too strict on this. He ducked under the minimums only when
he knew he was where he was (and was familiar with the terrain and the
tower). And there was the whole bit about the unapproved maintanance
and the lack of silly paperwork. We all know that the only paperwork
that makes an airplane fly is green and has dead presidents and such on it.

Who are you to disagree with his assessment of himself, his maintanance,
and his attitude? You are in the same position (objectively speaking)
as I am, disagreeing with your assessment of yourself, your maintanance,
and your attitude. That is, we are each "the other guy" in the
scenario. Each of us knows =we're= right, and "the other guy" is messed up.

Now, in the scenario I painted, where is the problem? Why is "one sip"
(and I specified the amount, it wasn't a "big sip") of beer five hours
before a flight not safer than two and a half drinks eight hours before?
It probably is, but that's the start down a slippery slope which can
easily end in an NTSB report. But so can replacing stall warning
switches and landing gear struts with unapproved parts (the homebuilding
market notwithstanding). If you have an "approved" airplane, it needs
to stay "approved", and that means following the rules. You don't get
to decide what they are, not with alcohol, not with aircraft parts, and
not with recordkeeping. Cut a corner (and get away with it) anywhere,
and more corners will be cut in the future.

And if the NTSB report shows that the unapproved part in somebody else's
airplane was installed when you were the owner, and an accident results,
I may lose my chance at staying at the premier aviation-themed motel in
Iowa.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 11:43 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
> > and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
> > how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
> > approved part?
>
> Define "good".

Manufacturered in an approved way. That means it's manufactured in a
manner acceptable to the Adminstrator. That doesn't include your
tractor lightbulb.

The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part. Argue and bash the FAA all
you want,but it doesn't change the fact that what you are suggesting is
illegal.

Emily[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 11:52 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Comparing silly landing light regulations with life-and-death flight
> rules does little to further the discussion.

Are you kidding? Both are breaking rules. The fact is, the FAA makes
the rules, you don't. As a CFI, I stay FAR away from pilots who think
ANY rule doesn't apply to them.

> But back to the topic: I see plenty of owners dinking around with their
> planes inside their hangars every weekend, checking this, straightening
> that, making sure every zip tie and hose is perfect. Quite frankly,
> pride in ownership is one of the three reasons that I think owning a
> plane is worth every penny, and I've spent many happy hours in my
> hangar doing nothing but polishing parts that no one else (but my
> mechanic and me) will ever see.

I'm finally beginning to see why everyone else thinks GA pilots are
elitist. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect this is the cause of the
entire thread.

>and in each case I have
> been able to rectify them BEFORE they became a maintenance problem.

So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
Have you read §43.3?

> This is unlikely to happen as a renter.

I think what you're actually trying to prove is that those of us who
rent abuse planes and don't take any pride in taking care of them.
Think like that if you wish, but it's an elitist attitude and one that
does GA no favors. Owning an aircraft does not entitle you to violate
any regulation, especially Part 43 or 21...and unfortunately, those are
the ones I see owners violating most frequently. I've refused to
instruct owners who perform illegal maintenance, and I've refused to
fly with renters who bust minimums. It has nothing to do with who owns
the plane, and everything to do with the mentality of the pilot.
You've proven in this thread that you think you are above the FAR's,
which is pretty sad.

Emily[_1_]

October 22nd 06, 11:53 PM

> So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

I have a great powerpoint presentation that you might be interested in.
It describes the approved way to manufacture an aircraft part. Let me
know.

Mxsmanic

October 23rd 06, 12:00 AM

Jay Honeck writes:

> I hate to waste such a great narrative, Jose, but your premise is so
> overblown that I can't even address it. For you to equate my attitude
> toward using an unapproved (but identical -- maybe even superior)
> landing light bulb with the attitudes of an IFR pilot drinking and
> doing an unapproved instrument approach is just goofy, and does nothing
> to further this discussion.

It's a slippery slope.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 12:02 AM

Peter Dohm

October 23rd 06, 12:14 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as
good"?
>
> > I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow
about
> > your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur
to
> > you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use,
the
> > FAA actually considers the safety of that part.
>
> Obviously when it comes to flight safety rules, FAA approval is
> paramount on a certificated plane. But I wasn't talking about engines
> or props here, Pete -- I was talking about a *landing light*.
>
> Which, again, is pretty far afield from the topic of this thread. IMO,
> rental planes are ridden hard and put away wet, compared to
> owner-operated planes, and you would think there would be some way to
> quantify this by examining accidents that were caused by mechanical
> problems, if only the FAA/NTSB would ask the question.
>
> Of course, in my experience the government is quite good at not asking
> questions that they don't want answered.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
First, back to the original question of the thread: I don't know the true
answer either, but my hypothesis is that the rental fleet probably has a
better fatal accident record--even though I strongly suspect that the owner
operated airplanes (that actually fly) are safer by virtue of maintenance
and more carefull handling. My reasoning is simply that a pilot who is no
longer current is more likely to receive some assistance in getting current.

On the "side" issue of approved/certified parts: I believe it to be more an
issue of traceability than of absolute quality or reliability. In other
words, the failure history of traceable parts is usefull in the complilation
of ADs and Service Bulletins.

To whatever extent light bulbs are a safety items, I would suggest that
annunciator lights are more important than landing lights. The most
infamous case that I can recall of an annunciator light starting a fatal
chain of events involved the nose gear annunciator lamp on an L-1011
operated by Eastern Airlines--which ultimately crashed in the Florida
Everglades. OTOH, I can't think of any instance in which a failed light
bulb caused any problem other than as a distraction.

Peter

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 12:56 AM

"Emily" > wrote:
> I think what you're actually trying to prove is that those of us who
> rent abuse planes and don't take any pride in taking care of them.
> Think like that if you wish, but it's an elitist attitude and one that
> does GA no favors.

And your statement that most owners with hangars *aren't* as meticulous
and legal as humanly possible is *not* an elitist attitude that does GA
no favors? You have no more right to make that assumption than anyone
assuming that most renters abuse airplanes.

> I've refused to
> instruct owners who perform illegal maintenance, and I've refused to
> fly with renters who bust minimums. It has nothing to do with who owns
> the plane, and everything to do with the mentality of the pilot.

Pilots, renters and owners are all subject to the rules. Some bend/break
them; others follow them to the letter. There isn't any one group that
does more illegal stuff than another -- there are owners *and*
FBOs/schools that cut corners, and pilots who don't follow all the
rules. You seem to be implying that one group is more guilty than
another. Unless you can point to some legitimate stats, that's just your
opinion.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 01:18 AM

wrote:
> There isn't any one group that
> does more illegal stuff than another -- there are owners *and*
> FBOs/schools that cut corners, and pilots who don't follow all the
> rules. You seem to be implying that one group is more guilty than
> another.

Can you read? I've said repeatedly that it has nothing to do with who
owns and who rents. A bad pilot who breaks rules and beats up an
airplane is going to do so if he rents or owns...but that's something
Jay doesn't see.

What I DID say is that it's an elitist attitude to think renters are
harder on planes than anyone else.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 01:19 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Obviously when it comes to flight safety rules, FAA approval is
> paramount on a certificated plane. But I wasn't talking about engines
> or props here, Pete -- I was talking about a *landing light*.

A landing light is still certificated under Par 21, which blows your
idea out of the water.

Newps

October 23rd 06, 01:33 AM

Emily wrote:

>
> The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
> in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.

Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 02:12 AM

Newps wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
> >
> > The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
> > in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
>
>
>
> Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
> it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
> used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Wal-Mart was an example. My point was, you are not legally allowed to
install an unapproved part on an aircraft.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 02:15 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Emily wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
> > > in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
> > it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
> > used in a number of non aircraft applications.
> >
>
> My recollection exactly. IIRC, the same was true for fuses--which were not
> "free stock" only because failures were tallied so that their cause could be
> tracked.
>
> BTW, my KF list currently stands at "1" for the entire world community of
> newsgroup participants; but Emily is cruisin' for inclusion!

Be my guest. I work for a large manufacturer and my experience is with
transport catergory aircraft parts that you can't buy on the street.
I've been involved with SUP investigations with both the FAA and DCIS.
You can learn from my experience or bust regs...but you're not selling
me aircraft parts, so I don't really care which it is.

Peter Dohm

October 23rd 06, 02:17 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
> >
> > The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
> > in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
>
>
>
> Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
> it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
> used in a number of non aircraft applications.
>

My recollection exactly. IIRC, the same was true for fuses--which were not
"free stock" only because failures were tallied so that their cause could be
tracked.

BTW, my KF list currently stands at "1" for the entire world community of
newsgroup participants; but Emily is cruisin' for inclusion!

Peter

Don Tuite

October 23rd 06, 02:59 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Emily wrote:
>
>>
>> The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
>> in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
>
>
>
>Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
>it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
>used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
into a notch in the mounting cutout?

Don

Capt.Doug

October 23rd 06, 03:54 AM

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly than
> owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I used to
> fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often abused and
> ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)

I don't know of any studies, just my anecdotal evidence to the contrary
point of view. At my local GA airport there are some school rentals that
look like crap and there are some owner-flown shiny showplanes. The crappy
looking rentals have renters crawling all over them before each and every
flight looking for discrepencies with a keen eye on impressing their
instructor by finding something wrong. The oil changes, 100 hour
inspections, and ADs are current or else the examiners wouldn't give
checkrides. The rentals look like crap because the money goes into
maintenance instead of paint and interior.

OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
nearly died because of it.

As for fatalities, my limited anecdotal evidence suggests that the rental
beaters have a better safety record than the privately owned shiny
showplanes, if one includes only accidents with a mechanical failure in the
list of probable causes.

D.

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 03:59 AM

I'd like a copy Emily. Please send to .

TIA

Emily wrote:
> > So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?
>
> I have a great powerpoint presentation that you might be interested in.
> It describes the approved way to manufacture an aircraft part. Let me
> know.

Peter Dohm

October 23rd 06, 04:04 AM

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Emily wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
> >> in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
> >
> >
> >
> >Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
> >it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
> >used in a number of non aircraft applications.
>
> Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
> into a notch in the mounting cutout?
>
> Don

I don't know either, but I doubt it. I did a quick search and found some
discussion regarding the 4509, Q4509, and H4509. Apparently some work has
been done with regard to substitution--with mixed results. Obviously, for
an Amateur-Built and given the choice of only those three, I would opt for
the H4509. But the choices get more interesting when you need an STC.
There was an interesting discussion at:
http://www.grumman.net/specific/LandingLight.txt

Basically, the 4509 is a 25 hour bulb, the Q4509 is a 100 hour bulb, and the
H4509 is a halogen replacement. Also, even when you just stay with the one
you have, prices vary wildly--so it pays to shop.

In addition, it appears that you no longer need to "re-invent the wheel" if
you really operate an airplane at night --rather than just using the landing
lights for better daytime visibility in the airport area. Some (vendor)
information regarding HID replacements for the 4509 series of lamps is
available at:
http://www.floatsalaska.com/Floats_BasicPages/HIDLights_Page.aspx

I am curious what the rest of you think.

Regards,

Peter

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 04:13 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote:
> OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
> had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
> shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
> and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
> nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
> I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
> nearly died because of it.

Wow, you know "many active pilot/owners" who haven't had an annual, BFR
or medical "for years"? Where is this? Pilots in other parts must be
very different. I know many of pilot/owners at our airport, and NONE
fall into the categories you described above.

Newps

October 23rd 06, 04:23 AM

Emily wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Emily wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
>>>in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
>>it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
>>used in a number of non aircraft applications.
>
>
> Wal-Mart was an example. My point was, you are not legally allowed to
> install an unapproved part on an aircraft.

There are many parts on an aircraft that do not need to be aircraft
parts. An example would be if you wanted to add a cig lighter port.
Any one from Wally World or Radio Shack will do.

Newps

October 23rd 06, 04:24 AM

Don Tuite wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Emily wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
>>>in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
>>it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
>>used in a number of non aircraft applications.
>
>
> Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
> into a notch in the mounting cutout?

Nope.

Capt.Doug

October 23rd 06, 04:33 AM

> wrote in message
> Wow, you know "many active pilot/owners" who haven't had an annual, BFR
> or medical "for years"? Where is this? Pilots in other parts must be
> very different. I know many of pilot/owners at our airport, and NONE
> fall into the categories you described above.

Or none disclose it. Do you ask each and every one of them to show their
medical certificate to you? And let us not forget the pencil whipped annuals
and BFRs.

If someone doesn't have a medical, BFR, and annual, does that make them
unsafe? Not neccessarily. Do most folks in these parts care? Not
neccessarily. Live and let live. Just don't cut someone off in the pattern.
Then we get ****y.

D.

Emily[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 04:40 AM

> There are many parts on an aircraft that do not need to be aircraft
> parts. An example would be if you wanted to add a cig lighter port.
> Any one from Wally World or Radio Shack will do.

I guess that's a difference between GA and commercial aviation.

Peter Duniho

October 23rd 06, 04:44 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Obviously when it comes to flight safety rules, FAA approval is
> paramount on a certificated plane. But I wasn't talking about engines
> or props here, Pete -- I was talking about a *landing light*.

And I explained why that IS a flight safety issue. You just chose to ignore
that explanation.

> Which, again, is pretty far afield from the topic of this thread. IMO,
> rental planes are ridden hard and put away wet, compared to
> owner-operated planes, and you would think there would be some way to
> quantify this by examining accidents that were caused by mechanical
> problems, if only the FAA/NTSB would ask the question.

I see in this thread a lot of opinions, all based on anecdotal observations.
IMHO, your assumption that owners are more meticulous is just as suspect as
the other assumption that FBOs are.

The truth is that there are good owners and there are bad owners, just as
there are good FBOs and bad FBOs. Some owners fly their planes on a regular
basis, and spare no expense in keeping their airplanes clean and maintained.
Others let their airplanes sit for months at a time, and cut corners on
their maintenance every chance they get. Most owners are somewhere in
between. The same thing can be said about FBOs.

One area in which FBOs have the advantage, however, is utilization. Many
aspects of maintenance are actually *enhanced* when utilization is higher.
In these respects, busy FBOs have a clear advantage over owners too busy to
fly often.

> Of course, in my experience the government is quite good at not asking
> questions that they don't want answered.

Are you implying that the government specifically wants the answer to the
question you're asking to remain unanswered? For what possible reason would
they care whether the question is answered or not?

I doubt the answer would be as you think, but whatever the answer I see no
reason that the government would care one way or the other what it is.

Pete

Don Tuite

October 23rd 06, 05:00 AM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:24:17 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
>> into a notch in the mounting cutout?
>
>Nope.

I dunno. I went through the process.

(Dialog edited for terseness:)
Me: :Lookee! I got a cheap bulb!
A&P Look on the back. Has it got a tit?
Me: No.
A&P: Here's an approved bulb,see that tit?"
Me: Yep.
See that notch?
Me; Yep.
A&P: (Lecture about what he'd have to endure if an accident
investigator found the "bogus" bulb while investigating a crash, even
if caused by something entirely unrelated.)

Don

Dave Stadt

October 23rd 06, 05:55 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
>> "aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that. But I
>> don't know any owner who would cut a safety corner.
>
> That's not a safety corner?
>
> Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
> and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside) how
> do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
> approved part?
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it
> keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

My landing light, bought for pennies on the dollar at the farm store
compared to an avaition supplier, says FAA PMA on the box.

Dave Stadt

October 23rd 06, 05:59 AM

"Emily" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> > Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
>> > and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
>> > how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
>> > approved part?
>>
>> Define "good".
>
> Manufacturered in an approved way. That means it's manufactured in a
> manner acceptable to the Adminstrator.

Which in many cases means anything but "good." In some cases it means
"junk."

Dylan Smith

October 23rd 06, 11:41 AM

On 2006-10-22, Emily > wrote:
> So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
> Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
> under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
> Have you read §43.3?

You don't have to be an A&P to do work on your aircraft legally - you
just need to be supervised by an A&P.

When I had the C140, I did virtually all the maintenance - including, on
two occasions, replacing cylinders. But when I did, I'd drag it to my
A&P/AI's shop and work on it there. It probably actually cost me more
because it probably took more of my A&P's time to advise and inspect
what I was doing. But I learned a hell of a lot more that way, which
lead to greater understanding, which is a good thing.

No, I never installed an un-approved part either, not even a landing
light bulb (ours never blew anyway - being mounted in a retractible wing
mounted housing, it was isolated from the vibration that typically
destroys cowling mounted bulbs). However, I could see how the
inflexibility of the regulations has resulted in an unintended
consequence - for light GA, the inflexibility of the rules probably
results in a decrease of safety, compared to say allowing any
UL-approved equivalent part to be fitted.. Witness the appalling
failure rate of dry vacuum pumps and the total lack on most aircraft of
being able to use anything else. In a market which wasn't asphyxiated
with over-regulation, I would expect by now the dry pump would be a bad
memory of the past. Also the state of electrical systems on aircraft -
I've had several fail completely in a little over 1000 hours of flying.
In probably five times that amount of driving in cars which are kept in
far harsher environments, I think I've only ever seen one complete
electrical system failure. Funnily enough, that car was made in 1969 and
had a similar stone-age style mechanical regulator and dynamo as my
Cessna 140 had!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

kontiki

October 23rd 06, 11:48 AM

wrote:

>
> Emily:
>
>>Most aren't.
>
>
> I know many of the other airplane owners at my home airport and at other
> airports in this area. Yes, there are some exceptions, but *most are* at
> the hangar several times/week, fly often, and certainly *are* as legal
> and meticulous as possible. I'm sorry if people you know aren't, but
> statements like "most aren't" is simply one opinion.

I certainly agree. Don't know about other airports but AFAIK the AC owners
at our field are fairly meticulous about maintaining our planes. There are
no abandoned junkers sitting around or in hangars. There are a couple of
"projects" under way but IMHO that's a sign of a healthy airport.

Sorry its so bad where Emily lives. Perhaps the taxes are excessive...

Neil Gould

October 23rd 06, 11:48 AM

Recently, Capt.Doug > posted:

>> "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
>> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
>> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly
>> than owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I
>> used to fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often
>> abused and ignored.
>>
>> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
>> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
>> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
>> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> I don't know of any studies, just my anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary point of view. At my local GA airport there are some school
> rentals that look like crap and there are some owner-flown shiny
> showplanes. The crappy looking rentals have renters crawling all over
> them before each and every flight looking for discrepencies with a
> keen eye on impressing their instructor by finding something wrong.
> The oil changes, 100 hour inspections, and ADs are current or else
> the examiners wouldn't give checkrides. The rentals look like crap
> because the money goes into maintenance instead of paint and interior.
>
This accurately reflects the condition and practices of the aircraft in
our club/flight school. Any one of the planes may be used for a checkride,
and with 3-4 members per month taking one, every effort is made to keep
them all current. Of course, this results in 2 or 3 of the club's 15(+/-)
planes in maintenance at all times. I don't see how a private owner would
do better. OTOH, the private owners that I know, almost to a person, have
Jay's attitude toward busting regs with non-approved parts, and I agree
with Emily that this is a risky attitude to have.

Neil

kontiki

October 23rd 06, 11:52 AM

Emily wrote:

>
> So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
> Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
> under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
> Have you read §43.3?
>

Owners can perform lots of preventative maintenance on their own planes.
Personally I trust my own work ethic more than other peoples, that's
why I change my own oil... both in the plane and in the truck.

Arnold Sten

October 23rd 06, 01:56 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> While discussing flight safety in a different thread, the idea popped
> into my head that rental planes are probably more dangerous to fly than
> owner-flown aircraft. In my case, some of the rental birds I used to
> fly were down-right scary, and I know that they were often abused and
> ignored.
>
> This as opposed to my own aircraft, which have been meticulously
> maintained and pampered. (And, other than the hangar queens that are
> owned by "pilots" that never fly, every active pilot owner I know
> treats their plane in much the same way.)
>
> Strangely, I can't seem to find any statistics on this seemingly
> obvious (and easy-to-compile) issue. Does anyone know if any studies
> have been done in this regard?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Hello all,
A disclaimer from the git-go: As a rental pilot, I respond to this
thread with limited experience. I am lucky to rent from a "Certified"
Cessna flight center that owns 1 152, 5 172's (including a new G1000), 1
172RG, 1 182, 1 206, and 1 PA23. This particular flight school also
employs 5 or 6 CFI's (one of whom is also an A&P), as well as two
full-time career flight instructors. There is also a FSDO directly
across the road from this FBO, and FAA employees regularly fly these
rental aircraft.

During the 150 hours that I have rented any one of those planes, I have
had only two occasions to write up a squawk. Once for an alternator
problem (discovered during the run-up), and once for a bad headset
connector. Both of those problems were immediately repaired.

I feel very confident that these planes receive top notch service based
upon the following:

1) Each plane receives thorough pre-flights from students under the
watchful eyes of CFI's.
2) Cessna has a vested interest in making certain that these planes are
airworthy.
3) Each of these planes is used by FAA folks; The FBO darn well makes
sure these planes are up to snuff at all times.
4) Any problems are dwelt with quickly and thorougly by mechanics who
they themselves fly those same planes.
5) All fuel tanks are topped off at the end of the day.
6) All who fly these planes are required to cover the cowels openings
during bird nesting seasons.

and lastly, and not necessarily a repair issue:
6) Each and every time the planes are fueled by line service, the wind
shields are cleaned (at least during the "bug" seasons).

Do I feel that these planes are airworthy? You bet.
Do I still do a thorough pre-flight and double check the maintenance
records before each flight? You bet.

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 03:14 PM

kontiki > wrote:
> Owners can perform lots of preventative maintenance on their own planes.
> Personally I trust my own work ethic more than other peoples, that's
> why I change my own oil... both in the plane and in the truck.

Absolutely!
I don't fix it myself, but I know better than my mechanic when there's
an odd drop of oil, a different sound or smell, or anything "different"
on my airplane. And having a hangar, I've watched nearly every repair by
my A&P-IA as closely as a surgeon's assistant so as to understand what's
wrong and what's being done to fix it. I know some rental facilities do
a good job keeping their planes legal and airworthy, but generally there
isn't THAT kind of connection with those airplanes.

Kingfish

October 23rd 06, 03:27 PM

Capt.Doug wrote:
Live and let live. Just don't cut someone off in the pattern.
> Then we get ****y.
>

And don't leave coffee cups & candy wrappers in the plane for the next
renter. Then I get ****y...

I guess that should include used diapers and sic-sacs too (yes, I have
found those in rentals) Ewwww....

Peter Dohm

October 23rd 06, 05:36 PM

> wrote in message
...
> kontiki > wrote:
> > Owners can perform lots of preventative maintenance on their own planes.
> > Personally I trust my own work ethic more than other peoples, that's
> > why I change my own oil... both in the plane and in the truck.
>
> Absolutely!
> I don't fix it myself, but I know better than my mechanic when there's
> an odd drop of oil, a different sound or smell, or anything "different"
> on my airplane. And having a hangar, I've watched nearly every repair by
> my A&P-IA as closely as a surgeon's assistant so as to understand what's
> wrong and what's being done to fix it. I know some rental facilities do
> a good job keeping their planes legal and airworthy, but generally there
> isn't THAT kind of connection with those airplanes.

I've been told, somewhat counterintuitively, that "airworthiness" is a term
applied to the paperwork. The actual condition of the aircarft is another
matter--which might be implicit as a result of "airworthiness"; or might
not. This, combined with pre-flight inspections, virtually assures that
anything that goes wrong will be someone's fault.

Your tax dollars are hard at work.

Peter

Jay Honeck

October 23rd 06, 06:05 PM

> What I DID say is that it's an elitist attitude to think renters are
> harder on planes than anyone else.

Elitest? No. Just my personal experience, and my long-term observation
of human nature. Bottom line: If you don't own it, you're not going to
treat it as gently. It's the same with hotel rooms, same with rental
cars -- and the same with rental airplanes.

All I'm trying to do here is quantify the theory, and either prove or
disprove it. I don't really care one way the other, but you would
think that the stats would be easily available to either confirm or
deny the theory.

I find it fascinating that you're trying to turn an intellectual
exercise into a class issue. Considering how cheap it is to own and
operate your own spam can -- my old Warrior cost less than my Ford Van
-- this is a patently absurd notion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Michael[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 08:09 PM

Emily wrote:
> Are you kidding? Both are breaking rules.

Yes, that's true. But hey, if you want to go for hyperbole, so can I.
The people who founded this country were breaking the rules. When
rules are unreasonable, the right thing to do is break them.

> The fact is, the FAA makes
> the rules, you don't. As a CFI, I stay FAR away from pilots who think
> ANY rule doesn't apply to them.

As a CFI (ASMEL, IA, G), ATP, and A&P - I think you're deluded. Rules
don't keep you safe - good decisionmaking keeps you safe. Sometimes
good decisionmaking means ignoring what some bureaucrat decided.

> So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
> Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
> under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
> Have you read §43.3?

Jay is not an A&P, but I am, and I was doing these things long before I
had one. At the time, the A&P/IA who signed off my annuals told me to
do these things. And he certainly wasn't going to stand there and
supervise. The rules are ridiculous, and so we ignore them - and get
safer aircraft in the bargain.

BTW, a friend of mine owns a C-150. His insurance (full coverage) is
about $600/year. An FBO on the same field pays $6000+ to insure their
C-150 - and their insurance contains far more restrictions, and has
higher deductibles, than his. Think that's coincidence, or does it
maybe say something about the relative safety of rentals vs. private
airplanes?

Michael

Andrew Gideon

October 23rd 06, 08:40 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:02:37 +0000, john smith wrote:

>> > Overstressed airplanes shows signs of being overstressed.
>
>> Examples?
>
> Wrinkles

There was a 172 at a local FBO that had, apparently, been subjected to
flap deployment at too high a speed. The flaps were [slightly, but
noticeably] warped.

I never did find out at what speed that was done.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

October 23rd 06, 08:50 PM

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:44:23 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> One area in which FBOs have the advantage, however, is utilization. Many
> aspects of maintenance are actually *enhanced* when utilization is higher.
> In these respects, busy FBOs have a clear advantage over owners too busy
> to fly often.

Once a plane is flying enough to avoid corrosion, is there a benefit to
increased utilization?

I *believe* that there is. We'd one aircraft in our partnership that, for
one year, was flown significantly less than the others. It's MX cost per
flight hour shot up. Once it was being flown more, the hourly cost came
down. Note that the rate of flight never went down enough to worry about
corrosion.

Now, this is counterintuitive to some of my partners. They believe that
MX cost per flight hour should be roughly constant regardless of the
number of hours (once one is beyond the corrosion point).

I happen to think that the formula is more complex than MX/hour being a
constant. I suspect that MX/hour goes down for increased hours. But all
I have is that one experience and a gut feel.

Would you know of evidence that actually backs up the statement that
aspects of MX are enhanced when utilization is higher?

- Andrew

kontiki

October 23rd 06, 09:22 PM

Thanks for the injection of logic and sanity.

Kingfish

October 23rd 06, 09:24 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> -- this is a patently absurd notion.

I didn't know you could get a patent on an abusrd notion...

<note to self, call the PTO> : )

Peter Duniho

October 23rd 06, 09:26 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> Would you know of evidence that actually backs up the statement that
> aspects of MX are enhanced when utilization is higher?

Only my personal experience, which is not what I'd call "closely
documented". That is, it's basically anecdotal.

However, my experience suggests that maintenance can be grouped into two
broad categories: wear and tear, and sitting around. For the things that
are "wear and tear", the more you fly the plane, the more you spend. This
includes things like oil changes, lifetime-limited parts (lights, vacuum
pump, brakes, tires, etc.) The point of my previous statement is that there
are more "sitting around" items on the airplane than one might think.

Note that this distinction is somewhat artificial. That is, in most cases
that I can think of, the "sitting around" aspects either directly or
indirectly affect some "wear and tear" aspect. In that sense, it's hard to
separate the two. But there is definitely "wear and tear" that is a
consequence of "sitting around". In that sense, I blame that on "sitting
around", not "wear and tear".

One thing that always crops up when I don't fly my airplane as much as I
should are the seals in the hydraulic system. My airplane depends on
hydraulics for gear operation, flap operation, and trim operation, so it's
an important system. :) When the airplane sits for awhile, it takes a
couple of flights before I see the hydraulic system reliably maintain
pressure. During those flights, every now and then after some hydraulic
component is operated, the control valve doesn't seal completely and there's
a bit of leak-down, causing the hydraulic pump to run more than it otherwise
would. Since the hydraulic pump is a "wear and tear" item, this translates
in a subtle way into a higher cost for maintaining that part. In addition,
the hydraulic seals themselves suffer from disuse.

In a similar way, seals on the landing gear oleo struts are affected.
Through lack of use, they are harmed, and the more they are used, the less
they deteriorate. They are designed for a specific operating environment,
and letting them sit around without working reduces their lifetime. Yes,
using them also reduces their lifetime, but my experience has been that
their lifetime is actually quite good when used as designed, and not very
good when they aren't.

Another example is the tires. When the plane sits, the tires take an uneven
"set". This doesn't take long to happen, but if an airplane is flown
several times in a single day, this is essentially eliminated. Any amount
of time less than this allows it to happen to some degree. When the tire is
unbalanced like this, it affects the wear on the tire in an obvious way, and
the rest of the airplane in a less obvious way (through increased vibration
and direct stress on the connected parts).

These are just examples...one can go through all of the mechanical
components of the airplane, and identify a number of similar items. It's
been my experience that the "sitting around" maintenance items are not
restricted to engine corrosion. Not that engine corrosion should be
discounted, but it's not the only thing. And on top of all that (as if that
weren't enough proof that flying more often always helps at least some
maintenance costs) to some extent corrosion starts the moment you shut down
the engine...it's true that on the whole, the engine remains protected, and
corrosion really accelerates after some longer period, but that doesn't mean
that there is *no* corrosion.

So, it doesn't surprise me at all that regardless of actual flight hours,
the more the flight hours the better, even once you pass the mythical
"anti-corrosion" threshold. As you note, your club's experience bears this
out.

All that said, note that I was simply talking about some aspects of
maintenance, and not trying to address the total cost per hour of
maintenance. I do suspect that above some reasonable utilization, the cost
per hour is relatively constant. You may manage some marginal improvement
with even higher utilization, but I'm sure there's some point of diminishing
returns. I admit, as an owner with a lot of non-aviation distractions in my
life, I have only even approached this point a handful of times during my
ownership, and I have never passed it. :) For owners like me, it is clear
that a well-used and well-maintained FBO airplane is likely to be in at
least as good shape as my own airplane.

My main point is that I don't believe one can make broad generalizations
about privatele owned versus FBO-owned airplanes. There's too much
individual variability among each, and most of the time a well-maintained
airplane is just not going to be a factor in an accident, regardless. It's
the neglectful owners, whether an individual or an FBO, that are a problem,
and there too many examples of each type for anyone to claim that one is
clearly worse than the other.

Pete

Peter Dohm

October 23rd 06, 09:47 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:44:23 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > One area in which FBOs have the advantage, however, is utilization.
Many
> > aspects of maintenance are actually *enhanced* when utilization is
higher.
> > In these respects, busy FBOs have a clear advantage over owners too busy
> > to fly often.
>
> Once a plane is flying enough to avoid corrosion, is there a benefit to
> increased utilization?
>
> I *believe* that there is. We'd one aircraft in our partnership that, for
> one year, was flown significantly less than the others. It's MX cost per
> flight hour shot up. Once it was being flown more, the hourly cost came
> down. Note that the rate of flight never went down enough to worry about
> corrosion.
>
> Now, this is counterintuitive to some of my partners. They believe that
> MX cost per flight hour should be roughly constant regardless of the
> number of hours (once one is beyond the corrosion point).
>
> I happen to think that the formula is more complex than MX/hour being a
> constant. I suspect that MX/hour goes down for increased hours. But all
> I have is that one experience and a gut feel.
>
> Would you know of evidence that actually backs up the statement that
> aspects of MX are enhanced when utilization is higher?
>
> - Andrew
>
Your aircraft experience is identical to my automotive experience, and also
to the second hand information that I have received about aircraft. Just as
one example, the airport rumors state that highly utilized engines routinely
reach their projected TBO in excellent health; while the 100 hour per
engines almost never do. I suspect that the 200 to 300 hour per year
engines also fall short of TBO, but even anecdotal evidence is hard to find
in that range.

Peter
Also curious what other have seen and heard.

Jay Somerset

October 23rd 06, 09:51 PM

Jay Honeck,
I think you're off-base on this one. People who own planes leased back to
an FBO, and even FBO-owned planes, are probably maintained to a highjer
standard than most "owner-flown-only" planes. Reasons? 100-hour
inspections which are mandatory if rented out for flight training, etc, and
the ever-present threat of liability suits if anything goes wrong and a
renter is killed/injured.

Having had over 14 years of leaseback experience with my C-172P, I believe I
can speak with some credability here. Of course, it does pay to lease to a
reputable and careful FBO, but would any logical person do othrwise?

Jay Somerset [lots of us Jays around, it seems :-) ]

On 22 Oct 2006 14:30:43 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > I don't know any other way to say this: Because that FAA rule is
> > > stupid.
> > Anti-authority, anyone? It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid, it's
> > not an excuse for breaking it. Not to be dramatic, but do you think
> > having a DH on an approach is stupid?
>
> Comparing silly landing light regulations with life-and-death flight
> rules does little to further the discussion.
>
> But back to the topic: I see plenty of owners dinking around with their
> planes inside their hangars every weekend, checking this, straightening
> that, making sure every zip tie and hose is perfect. Quite frankly,
> pride in ownership is one of the three reasons that I think owning a
> plane is worth every penny, and I've spent many happy hours in my
> hangar doing nothing but polishing parts that no one else (but my
> mechanic and me) will ever see.
>
> During this quality time, I've occasionally found little maintenance
> issues that would otherwise go unnoticed. I've found exhaust pipe
> clamps loose, drippy hoses, and loose electrical connections while
> farting around inside the engine compartment, and in each case I have
> been able to rectify them BEFORE they became a maintenance problem.
>
> This is unlikely to happen as a renter. Unlike John Smith's happy
> situation (where he belongs to a club with 25 rental aircraft that are
> meticulously maintained) around here the rentals are all either owned
> by the FBOs, or they're put on "the line" as a lease-back aircraft.
> Not only would you have difficulty finding a renter pilot who would be
> willing to take the time to do this type of stuff, but the FBO rules
> would most likely prohibit it from happening.
>
> An example: When I was a renter, Mary and I had a favorite plane, a
> sweet little Cherokee 140 with a fresh engine. After six months of
> renting it, the thing was an absolutely cosmetic disaster, with bug
> guts hardened on to all the leading edges, and topsoil pounded into the
> carpet on the floor.
>
> Knowing what a shoe-string budget the FBO was running on (they weren't
> about to pay a line boy to clean it), we proposed doing a
> "plane-washing party", where all the renters would come out and spend
> an afternoon cleaning that poor old dawg. We even volunteered to
> provide the beer, and do a cookout (remember, this was in Wisconsin,
> where beer at the airport is not only okay, it's *expected*), as an
> incentive to get renters to participate.
>
> The idea was met with absolute incredulity from the other renters.
> Their attitude was, quite simply, "Why would I work to clean someone
> else's plane?" -- and that was that. There was no pride in the machine
> -- it was just a tool that they were borrowing from someone else --
> period.
>
> Saying that this "not my problem" attitude isn't common among renters
> flies in the face of my personal experience, which isn't to say that
> there aren't exceptions to the rule. But, again, IMHO most rental
> birds are "ridden hard and put away wet" -- and there should be some
> way to quantify this when comparing accidents due to mechanical
> failure, if only the FAA would track it.

Jay Honeck

October 23rd 06, 09:57 PM

> Are you implying that the government specifically wants the answer to the
> question you're asking to remain unanswered? For what possible reason would
> they care whether the question is answered or not?

The government (the FAA) is famous for not asking the simple question:
"How many hours did you fly since your last medical exam?" on the
medical application form. This leaves everyone in (and outside) the
government guessing how many total hours were flown last year, or the
year before -- and results in tremendously inaccurate (probably)
estimates. (Richard Collins, of Flying, has been railing about his for
years.)

Why don't they ask? No one seems to know -- but perhaps because they
are afraid of the answer?

Now, are these same folks not putting this "rental vs owned aircraft"
question on the accident reports for the same reason? I don't know --
but it sure seems like an odd question to omit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho

October 23rd 06, 10:23 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Are you implying that the government specifically wants the answer to the
>> question you're asking to remain unanswered? For what possible reason
>> would
>> they care whether the question is answered or not?
>
> The government (the FAA) is famous for not asking the simple question:
> "How many hours did you fly since your last medical exam?" on the
> medical application form.

"Famous"? I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

> This leaves everyone in (and outside) the
> government guessing how many total hours were flown last year, or the
> year before -- and results in tremendously inaccurate (probably)
> estimates. (Richard Collins, of Flying, has been railing about his for
> years.)

It does leave people guessing, yes. That's what happens when one doesn't
survey the information desired. One has to guess.

> Why don't they ask? No one seems to know -- but perhaps because they
> are afraid of the answer?

"Perhaps"? And perhaps they are not. What's your point?

> Now, are these same folks not putting this "rental vs owned aircraft"
> question on the accident reports for the same reason? I don't know --
> but it sure seems like an odd question to omit.

You have completely failed to address ANYTHING in the post to which you
replied, including the direct questions to you that you quoted in your
reply. Shall I apply the same suspicion to my interpretation of your post
as you are applying to the FAA?

Pete

Jay Honeck

October 23rd 06, 10:24 PM

> I think what you're actually trying to prove is that those of us who
> rent abuse planes and don't take any pride in taking care of them.
> Think like that if you wish, but it's an elitist attitude and one that
> does GA no favors. Owning an aircraft does not entitle you to violate
> any regulation, especially Part 43 or 21...and unfortunately, those are
> the ones I see owners violating most frequently. I've refused to
> instruct owners who perform illegal maintenance, and I've refused to
> fly with renters who bust minimums. It has nothing to do with who owns
> the plane, and everything to do with the mentality of the pilot.
> You've proven in this thread that you think you are above the FAR's,
> which is pretty sad.

Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?

If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance" you have officially
announced your lifetime membership in the "Box of Rocks" category.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

October 23rd 06, 10:56 PM

> You have completely failed to address ANYTHING in the post to which you
> replied, including the direct questions to you that you quoted in your
> reply. Shall I apply the same suspicion to my interpretation of your post
> as you are applying to the FAA?

I replied to the one part of your post that required a response.

The rest of your post could be more or less summed up as saying "There
are good owners and renters, and there are bad owners and renters."
Which is true, of course, but sheds little light on the subject.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho

October 23rd 06, 11:09 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> You have completely failed to address ANYTHING in the post to which you
>> replied, including the direct questions to you that you quoted in your
>> reply. Shall I apply the same suspicion to my interpretation of your
>> post
>> as you are applying to the FAA?
>
> I replied to the one part of your post that required a response.

No, you did not. You answered neither the question "Are you implying that
the government specifically wants the answer to the question you're asking
to remain unanswered?" as well as the question "For what possible reason
would they care whether the question is answered or not?"

Those were the only two portions of my previous post that you quoted, and
you completely avoided those questions.

> The rest of your post could be more or less summed up as saying "There
> are good owners and renters, and there are bad owners and renters."
> Which is true, of course, but sheds little light on the subject.

It sheds quite a bit of light on the subject, inasmuch as it suggests that
the answer to your original question is that no, there is no significant
difference between the fatal accident rate for rental airplanes and owned
airplanes due to maintenance.

Pete

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 11:40 PM

Jay Somerset >> wrote:

> Jay Honeck,
> I think you're off-base on this one. People who own planes leased back to
> an FBO, and even FBO-owned planes, are probably maintained to a highjer
> standard than most "owner-flown-only" planes. Reasons? 100-hour
> inspections which are mandatory if rented out for flight training, etc, and
> the ever-present threat of liability suits if anything goes wrong and a
> renter is killed/injured.
>
> Having had over 14 years of leaseback experience with my C-172P, I believe I
> can speak with some credability here. Of course, it does pay to lease to a
> reputable and careful FBO, but would any logical person do othrwise?

I believe I have a little credibility, too -- I worked at a flight
school and own an airplane. After a relatively short time of airplane
ownership, it was evident that there is a big difference between the
meticulousness of mechanics. There can be a huge gap between the lengths
two different mechanics will go to inspect and sign things off.

IMO, it's wrong to *assume* that rental airplanes are safer just because
100-hr inspections are mandatory for those aircraft. It is a logical
assumption, but not necessarily an accurate one. Depends on who is doing
those 100-hr inspections. Is it the same mechanic every time, one that
is familiar with that airplane? or is it a different guy each time? Is
it a trainee doing the work under the supervision of an A&P, IA? or is
it the IA himself?

Privately-owned airplanes generally have a couple of mechanics that do
*all* the maintenance in conjunction with the owner. They all become
familiar with the nuances of each airplane. And some privately owned
aircraft are looked at by mechanics as often, if not moreso, than rental
aircraft.

Think about it -- if you fly 2x/week for 2 hours each time, that's
roughly 200 hours/year. There are some rental aircraft that don't fly
much more than 4 hours/week, if that, as well (some much more, of
course). So how much more maintenance is that rental getting, just
because they get an inspection every 100 hours? In a year, they get one
100-hr and an annual. The privately-owned airplane with the same amount
of hours gets an annual, but with oil changes every 25 hours, most
owners and mechanics are repairing other squawks and checking various
things during those oil changes as well. I've seen rental aircraft in
for oil changes -- they get the oil changed, PERIOD!...no additional
looking around unless someone is there with a squawk list.

I don't buy for a second that rental airplanes are automatically safer
just because they have 100-hr inspections. They are indeed insured for
more because of the threat of liability ... but ... automatically safer?
I don't think so.

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 12:12 AM

> Why don't they ask? ["How many hours did you fly since your last medical exam?"]
> No one seems to know -- but perhaps because they
> are afraid of the answer?

Maybe it's none of the government's business.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 12:14 AM

> Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
quite a few threads.

> If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
> sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
> tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...

You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or Jay
Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Dohm

October 24th 06, 01:02 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > I think what you're actually trying to prove is that those of us who
> > rent abuse planes and don't take any pride in taking care of them.
> > Think like that if you wish, but it's an elitist attitude and one that
> > does GA no favors. Owning an aircraft does not entitle you to violate
> > any regulation, especially Part 43 or 21...and unfortunately, those are
> > the ones I see owners violating most frequently. I've refused to
> > instruct owners who perform illegal maintenance, and I've refused to
> > fly with renters who bust minimums. It has nothing to do with who owns
> > the plane, and everything to do with the mentality of the pilot.
> > You've proven in this thread that you think you are above the FAR's,
> > which is pretty sad.
>
> Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?
>
> Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
> here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
> know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
> yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?
>
> If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
> sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
> tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance" you have officially
> announced your lifetime membership in the "Box of Rocks" category.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I believe that you have summed it up quite well, Jay.

I just took another look at the list of approved pilot performed
maintenance, and would suggest that it covers the majority of maintenence
for a typical aircraft in a typical year. It does not include overhaul,
complex repairs, or annual inspection; but does allow the pilot to perform a
lot of the preparatory work for each of those. Therefore, clearly, when the
removal and replacement of covers and the assembling of required documents
is included, the pilot is in fact authorized under Part 43 to contribute the
majority of labor hours to the maintenance and inspection of the
aircraft--even when the annual condition inspection is included. Any
supervised work is additional.

Peter

Emily[_1_]

October 24th 06, 01:15 AM

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> > Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
> >> > and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
> >> > how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
> >> > approved part?
> >>
> >> Define "good".
> >
> > Manufacturered in an approved way. That means it's manufactured in a
> > manner acceptable to the Adminstrator.
>
> Which in many cases means anything but "good." In some cases it means
> "junk."

Doesn't matter. It's what's legal.

Emily[_1_]

October 24th 06, 01:16 AM

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-22, Emily > wrote:
> > So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
> > Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
> > under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
> > Have you read §43.3?
>
> You don't have to be an A&P to do work on your aircraft legally - you
> just need to be supervised by an A&P.

I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
supervised by an A&P? How many actually know what they are doing?

Emily[_1_]

October 24th 06, 01:20 AM

Michael wrote:
> Emily wrote:
> > Are you kidding? Both are breaking rules.
>
> Yes, that's true. But hey, if you want to go for hyperbole, so can I.
> The people who founded this country were breaking the rules. When
> rules are unreasonable, the right thing to do is break them.

After exhausting all over options. I can read the Declaration, too,
but none of those men just decided to break a rule to break a rule.

> As a CFI (ASMEL, IA, G), ATP, and A&P - I think you're deluded. Rules
> don't keep you safe - good decisionmaking keeps you safe. Sometimes
> good decisionmaking means ignoring what some bureaucrat decided.

You might be right, but I choose to stay away from pilots who break
rules. I don't need my certificates (yes, I can play the letter game,
too, with ASEL, AMEL, IA, AGI, IGI, and A&P) in jeopardy because
someone decided to play by his own rules.

Emily[_1_]

October 24th 06, 01:23 AM

Emily[_1_]

October 24th 06, 01:25 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Uh, you said you feel ok with violating an FAR if you think it is
unreasonable.

> Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
> here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
> know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
> yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?

I know quite a bit about renting. I never claimed to know anything
about airplane ownership and yes, I am quite qualified to spout FAR's.
I do it for a living and folks here are the first who've had any
problems with it. YES, most of my experience is not with GA aircraft.
YES, after running into at least one SUP a week, I am a little
sensitive to people who deliberately install unapproved parts on
aircraft. If that makes me crazy, so be it....my employer thanks me
for it.

Bob Noel

October 24th 06, 01:33 AM

In article om>,
"Emily" > wrote:

> > You don't have to be an A&P to do work on your aircraft legally - you
> > just need to be supervised by an A&P.
>
> I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
> supervised by an A&P?

I am.

>How many actually know what they are doing?

um. That's one reason I get supervised by an A&P. One of
Jerry's rules, if you don't know what you are doing, make sure you
are dealing with someone who does.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Peter Dohm

October 24th 06, 01:37 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> > Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?
>
> Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
> quite a few threads.
>
> > If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
> > sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
> > tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...
>
> You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
> unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
> daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or Jay
> Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The light bulb issue is not so obvious as it at first appears. For example,
we did not actually establish whether or not there was more than one variant
of the 4509 or of the Q4509, whether they were regarded as interchangeable,
or whether there was any difference between brands. A call to Piper, or
even to the local FSDO, could be illuminating.

As to the issue of the "notch" and "tit" elsewhere in this thread: I seen
and heard a few mechanics blow some smoke over the years. Every traditional
sealed beam bulb that I have ever examined has included a means of locking
it in a particular orientation in the "bucket". Where there is both a high
and low bean, the requirement is clear. In single filament bulbs, I suspect
that it is mainly for interchangeability of the "buckets"; although some
bulbs do have different horizontal and vertical beam spreads.

My best guess is that the highest prices have little to do with quality or
approval, but much to do with low inventory turnover. Some parts may be
stocked as a courtesy, and therefore held in inventory for long periods.
There may also have been a shipping cost associated with only one or two
light bulbs.

Peter

[email protected]

October 24th 06, 01:47 AM

"Emily" > wrote:
> I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
> supervised by an A&P?

All that I know of. I don't know *anyone* who does anything other than
legal, preventive MX on their own airplane without being advised and
supervised by an A&P, and most have the A&P check the preventive stuff,
too.

>How many actually know what they are doing?

Depends what the job is. If it's turning a screwdriver, *all* know what
they're doing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to clean things,
either. Other things vary.

Either you just have a really LOW opinion of the airplane owners in your
area, or the owners there are very different. Is there a shortage of
A&Ps there? None of the owners here are stupid enough to do work when
they "don't know what they're doing" on an airplane they and/or someone
they love are going to fly.

Don Tuite

October 24th 06, 02:26 AM

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> > Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?
>>
>> Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
>> quite a few threads.
>>
>> > If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
>> > sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
>> > tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...
>>
>> You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
>> unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
>> daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or Jay
>> Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.
>>
>> Jose
>> --
>> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
>> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
>The light bulb issue is not so obvious as it at first appears. For example,
>we did not actually establish whether or not there was more than one variant
>of the 4509 or of the Q4509, whether they were regarded as interchangeable,
>or whether there was any difference between brands. A call to Piper, or
>even to the local FSDO, could be illuminating.
>
>As to the issue of the "notch" and "tit" elsewhere in this thread: I seen
>and heard a few mechanics blow some smoke over the years. Every traditional
>sealed beam bulb that I have ever examined has included a means of locking
>it in a particular orientation in the "bucket". Where there is both a high
>and low bean, the requirement is clear. In single filament bulbs, I suspect
>that it is mainly for interchangeability of the "buckets"; although some
>bulbs do have different horizontal and vertical beam spreads.
>
>My best guess is that the highest prices have little to do with quality or
>approval, but much to do with low inventory turnover. Some parts may be
>stocked as a courtesy, and therefore held in inventory for long periods.
>There may also have been a shipping cost associated with only one or two
>light bulbs.
>
>Peter
>
Empirical data:

The bulb from Pep Boys didn't have a tit; the bulb from the repair
shop on the field did.

When the tit was in the slot in the PA28 nose, the bulb filament was
vertical.

The rest is philosophy.

Don

Peter Dohm

October 24th 06, 02:42 AM

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jose" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >> > Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?
> >>
> >> Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
> >> quite a few threads.
> >>
> >> > If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird,
making
> >> > sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times,
is
> >> > tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...
> >>
> >> You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
> >> unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
> >> daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or
Jay
> >> Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.
> >>
> >> Jose
> >> --
> >> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> >> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
> >
> >The light bulb issue is not so obvious as it at first appears. For
example,
> >we did not actually establish whether or not there was more than one
variant
> >of the 4509 or of the Q4509, whether they were regarded as
interchangeable,
> >or whether there was any difference between brands. A call to Piper, or
> >even to the local FSDO, could be illuminating.
> >
> >As to the issue of the "notch" and "tit" elsewhere in this thread: I
seen
> >and heard a few mechanics blow some smoke over the years. Every
traditional
> >sealed beam bulb that I have ever examined has included a means of
locking
> >it in a particular orientation in the "bucket". Where there is both a
high
> >and low bean, the requirement is clear. In single filament bulbs, I
suspect
> >that it is mainly for interchangeability of the "buckets"; although some
> >bulbs do have different horizontal and vertical beam spreads.
> >
> >My best guess is that the highest prices have little to do with quality
or
> >approval, but much to do with low inventory turnover. Some parts may be
> >stocked as a courtesy, and therefore held in inventory for long periods.
> >There may also have been a shipping cost associated with only one or two
> >light bulbs.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> Empirical data:
>
> The bulb from Pep Boys didn't have a tit; the bulb from the repair
> shop on the field did.
>
> When the tit was in the slot in the PA28 nose, the bulb filament was
> vertical.
>
> The rest is philosophy.
>
> Don

Not to be a pain in the neck, but rather to collect a little empirical data
for myself: Was the brand name on the box something recognizeable like GE
or Sylvania, and was the number really the same including any prefix or
suffix?

I've seen some interesting store brand parts from time to time.

Peter

Dave Stadt

October 24th 06, 05:06 AM

"Emily" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Jay Honeck wrote:
>> >> > Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe
>> >> > not)
>> >> > and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing
>> >> > aside)
>> >> > how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as
>> >> > an
>> >> > approved part?
>> >>
>> >> Define "good".
>> >
>> > Manufacturered in an approved way. That means it's manufactured in a
>> > manner acceptable to the Adminstrator.
>>
>> Which in many cases means anything but "good." In some cases it means
>> "junk."
>
> Doesn't matter. It's what's legal.

My safety outranks what the FAA considers legal.

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 05:32 AM

> BTW, a friend of mine owns a C-150. His insurance (full coverage) is
> about $600/year. An FBO on the same field pays $6000+ to insure their
> C-150 - and their insurance contains far more restrictions, and has
> higher deductibles, than his. Think that's coincidence, or does it
> maybe say something about the relative safety of rentals vs. private
> airplanes?

No.

I think it has to do with exposure. There is a large field of pilots
who will be flying the airplanes, with the bulk of it being training or
flight by less experienced (or less current) pilots. It has something
to do with it being a profit making venture too, I suppose.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 05:34 AM

> Depends on who is doing
> those 100-hr inspections. Is it the same mechanic every time, one that
> is familiar with that airplane? or is it a different guy each time?

Your implication is that the former is better, but I don't think that's
true. It is probably the case that the same mechanic will overlook the
same things. A different guy every time will emphasize different
things, and overall, over time, more is likely to be covered.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Duniho

October 24th 06, 07:43 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> The light bulb issue is not so obvious as it at first appears. For
> example,
> we did not actually establish whether or not there was more than one
> variant
> of the 4509 or of the Q4509, whether they were regarded as
> interchangeable,
> or whether there was any difference between brands. A call to Piper, or
> even to the local FSDO, could be illuminating.

It's true that the particular example is not clear-cut. However, Jay's
assumption was *clearly* that the question was between using an officially
approved part and an officially unapproved part.

It may well be that in this particular case, there's not even any such thing
as an unapproved part. But IMHO that doesn't matter. For the sake of the
discussion of whether breaking the rules is reasonable or not, one must
start with the assumption that breaking the rules is an option.

If you don't like that the example is a lightbulb, then just pretend it is
some other part that does require specific FAA approval for installation
whenever anyone writes "lightbulb". It doesn't matter, not for the purpose
of the question being addressed here (where "here" is the discussion
directly pertaining to the reasonableness of ignoring the FAA
regulations...elsewhere in this thread there is the discussion about the
specifics of a lightbulb, and it seems perfectly fine to continue that
discussion there :) ).

Pete

[email protected]

October 24th 06, 09:01 AM

Xmnushal8y:
> > Depends on who is doing
> > those 100-hr inspections. Is it the same mechanic every time, one that
> > is familiar with that airplane? or is it a different guy each time?

Jose:
> Your implication is that the former is better, but I don't think that's
> true. It is probably the case that the same mechanic will overlook the
> same things. A different guy every time will emphasize different
> things, and overall, over time, more is likely to be covered.

I understand your point, but there's something to be said for both
schools of thought -- a mechanic that is familiar with the airplane
*and* different eyes/skill looking at the same airplane. Many owners
have two or three mechanics who work on their planes (I did), since the
same one isn't always available, and they each have areas that they tend
to focus on. They all get to know the nuances of your individual
airplane, not like *you* do, but mechanically ... and they overlap so
that things aren't overlooked and it all gets covered.

And in the end, sometimes things happen that 10 mechanics could not have
foreseen.

Neil Gould

October 24th 06, 12:41 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> Are you implying that the government specifically wants the answer
>> to the question you're asking to remain unanswered? For what
>> possible reason would they care whether the question is answered or
>> not?
>
> The government (the FAA) is famous for not asking the simple question:
> "How many hours did you fly since your last medical exam?" on the
> medical application form. This leaves everyone in (and outside) the
> government guessing how many total hours were flown last year, or the
> year before -- and results in tremendously inaccurate (probably)
> estimates. (Richard Collins, of Flying, has been railing about his
> for years.)
>
They do ask your total hours flown (my medical was in August), as well as
hours flown this year. It's not really rocket science to subtract the
previous answer from the current one to derive the answer to the question
you're asking.

Neil

Jay Honeck

October 24th 06, 12:58 PM

> Having had over 14 years of leaseback experience with my C-172P, I believe I
> can speak with some credability here. Of course, it does pay to lease to a
> reputable and careful FBO, but would any logical person do othrwise?

Unfortunately, one of the things I learned (the hard way) was that FBOs
will "skate" on maintenance of their rental fleet when they are under
intense financial pressure. They understandably learn not to look too
closely for things to fix, when there's a negative cash flow.

And, since I don't know ANY FBOs that aren't under "intense financial
pressure" -- what does that say?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

October 24th 06, 01:00 PM

> > The rest of your post could be more or less summed up as saying "There
> > are good owners and renters, and there are bad owners and renters."
> > Which is true, of course, but sheds little light on the subject.
>
> It sheds quite a bit of light on the subject, inasmuch as it suggests that
> the answer to your original question is that no, there is no significant
> difference between the fatal accident rate for rental airplanes and owned
> airplanes due to maintenance.

No, your statement says you don't know the answer.

Of course, neither do I -- but that's beside the point!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Stefan

October 24th 06, 01:59 PM

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Unfortunately, one of the things I learned (the hard way) was that FBOs
> will "skate" on maintenance of their rental fleet when they are under
> intense financial pressure.

Just as owners do.

> And, since I don't know ANY FBOs that aren't under "intense financial
> pressure" -- what does that say?

That the renting rates are too low?

Stefan

Michael[_1_]

October 24th 06, 03:49 PM

Jose wrote:
> > BTW, a friend of mine owns a C-150. His insurance (full coverage) is
> > about $600/year. An FBO on the same field pays $6000+ to insure their
> > C-150 - and their insurance contains far more restrictions, and has
> > higher deductibles, than his. Think that's coincidence, or does it
> > maybe say something about the relative safety of rentals vs. private
> > airplanes?
>
> No.
>
> I think it has to do with exposure. There is a large field of pilots
> who will be flying the airplanes, with the bulk of it being training or
> flight by less experienced (or less current) pilots.

The open pilot warranty on my friend's plane is private pilot with 5
hours in make and model. No rules about being current or experienced.
In fact, there are more rules at the FBO - my friend can just go up and
shoot 3 touch&goes solo if he goes out of 90-day currency and be
covered, but the rental insurance stipulates that you must be current,
or hire a CFI to get current.

Nevertheless, you are right - exposure is a factor. Rentals fly more.
Of course those of us who own and fly over 100 hours a year get a
discount, not a surcharge. Think about it - the average private plane
flies 26 hours a year, but those who increase the exposure 4x get a
discount. That's because the OVERALL (not per-hour) risk of flying
100+ hours a year is less than the overall risk of flying 26.

The insurance companies have figured out that hours flown don't tell
the tale on a private airplane - more hours is actually better, because
increased pilot proficiency is more than offsetting increased exposure.
Rentals don't work that way - virtually none of the pilots are
proficient, because they just don't fly enough. If they could afford
to fly enough, they would be owners. More hours on a rental simply
means more exposure.

The local flight school has a twin. Now, to be honest, it does fly
about 2.5x the hours mine does. But the insurance is almost 10x, for
poorer coverage, on a slower, more docile plane with many more
operating restrictions. This is normal. In the time that I've owned
my twin, the flight schools on the field have managed to destroy three
of them. That is the reason for the huge difference in insurance.

> It has something
> to do with it being a profit making venture too, I suppose.

Not really. It has to do with the risk.

Michael

Peter Dohm

October 24th 06, 04:32 PM

> > > The rest of your post could be more or less summed up as saying "There
> > > are good owners and renters, and there are bad owners and renters."
> > > Which is true, of course, but sheds little light on the subject.
> >
> > It sheds quite a bit of light on the subject, inasmuch as it suggests
that
> > the answer to your original question is that no, there is no significant
> > difference between the fatal accident rate for rental airplanes and
owned
> > airplanes due to maintenance.
>
> No, your statement says you don't know the answer.
>
> Of course, neither do I -- but that's beside the point!
>
Nor do I, and I'm not sure that the answer can really be obtained--even if
every question is asked every time and all of the answers are meticulously
compiled.

What I would really find interesting, and also what I read into the original
question, is the relationship of accidents caused by mechanical failure to
airplanes flown with outstanding symptoms of problems.

Of course, that opens the issues of how a symptom comes to be noticed by a
pilot or by a line person, how that becomes a formal squawk, and how squawks
are investigated and cleared. The specifics will never probably be
resolved; but OTOH, a lack of gross statistical evidence favoring owned or
rental aircraft may mean that the difference is not dramatic.

Perhaps owners can only justify their investment by pride of ownership,
control of the equipment list, and having a particular aircraft cleaned and
ready on demand. Perhaps renters can only justify their position in terms
of freedom from most fixed costs and the flexibility of pay-as-you-go.
Perhaps neither can add safety as a primary justification--at least not on
the basis of overall fleet statistics.

Peter

john smith

October 24th 06, 04:47 PM

I really have to laugh at this approved lightbulb/not approved lightbulb
issue.
When the manufacturer builds the first prototype, they look around for
something that will fulfill their need.
If someones says "We need a light bulb and socket that will meet the
lumens requirement", where do you think they look first?
They go to an automotive supplier because the parts are plentiful and
above all cheap.
Only when the manufacturer applies for certification of the entire
aircraft does the light bulb and socket get its official paperwork.
They aren't about to reinvent wheel (well, not government contractors
anyway) and spend money they don't have for something they can get off
the shelf.
The parts that are "approved" may or may not come off a different
assembly line. If the part is approved as is when it comes off the
assembly line and the only difference is that it goes in a different
box, then the approval arguement is lame.
Why would a manufacturer build a separate assembly line for a specific
use that any of its normal production would meet?

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 05:01 PM

> Only when the manufacturer applies for certification of the entire
> aircraft does the light bulb and socket get its official paperwork.

Maybe true... but that speaks to the approval process itself (and
whether or not the FAA approval process is stupid for any given part).
I agree that sometimes it seems stupid. But sometimes it's not, and
it's a slippery slope to decide which rules don't apply to you because
you are smarter than the FAA.

Back to one sip of beer seven hours before takeoff, vs two glasses of
beer eight hours before takeoff. One's legal, one's not. The one that
is not is probably safer than the one that is. But how far down the
line are you willing to go? And once you decide that, why not "just a
little" further?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Don Tuite

October 24th 06, 06:38 PM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:01:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>Back to one sip of beer seven hours before takeoff, vs two glasses of
>beer eight hours before takeoff. One's legal, one's not. The one that
>is not is probably safer than the one that is. But how far down the
>line are you willing to go? And once you decide that, why not "just a
>little" further?
>
Does avoiding the slippery slope lead to "zero tolerance"?

(Pick your favorite idocy associated with zero-tolerance enforcement.)

That's why I keep coming back to the tit on the bulb. My mechanic, at
least, is convinced that if I get hit by lightning and crash, if the
accident investigators find a titless bulb, they're gonna hang him out
to dry -- even if he didn't know about it and it had nothing to do
with the crash.

So when it comes to owner maintenance, I find it easier to tell myself
that any non-approved part can have a "tit" that I don't know about
and that I don't want to be responsible for messing up somebody else's
life -- even if it's a pretty long shot that I will..

I find that easier to wrap my head around than taking an approach
that in other situations leads to throwing a kid out of school because
there's no semantic difference between a butterknife and a K-Bar.

Apologies if my strawman doesn't apply to your version of slippery
slopes.

Don ("Semantic"? There must be a better word.)

Jose[_1_]

October 24th 06, 07:22 PM

> Does avoiding the slippery slope lead to "zero tolerance"?

I see your point, but it's not quite on the mark. "Zero tolerance" is
an enforcement thing, not a compliance thing (where "compliance" is what
we do, and "enforcement" is what the Feds do. Yes, there are small
violations and big violations, and there is a difference between them.
However nobody has been arguing on the enforcement side of this. It has
all been on the compliance side - the (bad) attitude that it's ok to
pick and choose which laws to obey and which are beneath one's station.

Were I an (appropriate) FAA inspector who found a non-approved landing
light, I would probably know (or be able to find out) how serious a
violation this is. Ditto a two dollar Radio Shack microswitch for the
Piper stall warning ($700.00 if approved).

It might be that landing lights are tested in the flight levels, and
tractor bulbs are not. It may be that the stall switch is inspected
five times, and the Radio Shack switch has never been seen by human eyes
before. It may be just a palm greasing at the highest levels. I don't
know.

I do know that when I purchase an airplane, I don't want a collection of
parts that some prior owner thought were good enough.

If the FAA rules procedures for parts approvals needs an overhaul (and I
think it does) then it should be overhauled. But that's not the same as
being selectively ignored.

As a pilot/owner, I would have zero tolerance for my own rule breaking.
This is different from the FAA having a zero tolerance attitude
towards my rule breaking (to the degree of throwing a kid out of school
for a butter knife).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

October 24th 06, 07:22 PM

> Perhaps owners can only justify their investment by pride of ownership,
> control of the equipment list, and having a particular aircraft cleaned and
> ready on demand. Perhaps renters can only justify their position in terms
> of freedom from most fixed costs and the flexibility of pay-as-you-go.
> Perhaps neither can add safety as a primary justification--at least not on
> the basis of overall fleet statistics.

Perhaps.

Interestingly, in preparation for my response to the thread "Owner's
Poll", I took a look at my actual expense of owning an airplane. (This
is something I NEVER do, for fear of what I might see... ;-)

To my delight, I found that it's costing between $8K - $15K annually to
operate our aircraft. At our current rate of flying (around 200
hours/year), that works out to between $40 and $75 per hour for a
140-knot, 1460 pound load hauling SOB of a plane.

To say I'm happy with that would be an understatement -- I'm
darned-near ecstatic. Considering that the equivalent aircraft on our
field (the closest I can come is a 182) rents for over $100 per hour,
it's nice to see that renting is actually MORE expensive than owning,
at least for now. (This can change with one mishap or engine problem,
of course.)

Obviously that figure doesn't include acquisition costs and opportunity
costs -- but over time aircraft tend to appreciate in value, so I am
looking at our Pathfinder more as a long-term investment than as an
asset.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bela P. Havasreti

October 24th 06, 07:50 PM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:38:17 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:01:11 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>
>>Back to one sip of beer seven hours before takeoff, vs two glasses of
>>beer eight hours before takeoff. One's legal, one's not. The one that
>>is not is probably safer than the one that is. But how far down the
>>line are you willing to go? And once you decide that, why not "just a
>>little" further?
>>
>Does avoiding the slippery slope lead to "zero tolerance"?
>
>(Pick your favorite idocy associated with zero-tolerance enforcement.)
>
>That's why I keep coming back to the tit on the bulb. My mechanic, at
>least, is convinced that if I get hit by lightning and crash, if the
>accident investigators find a titless bulb, they're gonna hang him out
>to dry -- even if he didn't know about it and it had nothing to do
>with the crash.
>
>So when it comes to owner maintenance, I find it easier to tell myself
>that any non-approved part can have a "tit" that I don't know about
>and that I don't want to be responsible for messing up somebody else's
>life -- even if it's a pretty long shot that I will..
>
>I find that easier to wrap my head around than taking an approach
>that in other situations leads to throwing a kid out of school because
>there's no semantic difference between a butterknife and a K-Bar.
>
>Apologies if my strawman doesn't apply to your version of slippery
>slopes.
>
>Don ("Semantic"? There must be a better word.)

That's not typically how it works.... If you crash, the lawyers will
go after deep pockets (if there are any). If you're mechanic doesn't
have deep pockets, them finding the wrong landing light bulb on
your airplane isn't going to make a hill of beans difference....

Bela P. Havasreti

Neil Gould

October 24th 06, 10:17 PM

Recently, Bela P. Havasreti > posted:

> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:38:17 GMT, Don Tuite
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:01:11 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Back to one sip of beer seven hours before takeoff, vs two glasses
>>> of beer eight hours before takeoff. One's legal, one's not. The
>>> one that is not is probably safer than the one that is. But how
>>> far down the line are you willing to go? And once you decide that,
>>> why not "just a little" further?
>>>
>> Does avoiding the slippery slope lead to "zero tolerance"?
>>
>> (Pick your favorite idocy associated with zero-tolerance
>> enforcement.)
>>
>> That's why I keep coming back to the tit on the bulb. My mechanic,
>> at least, is convinced that if I get hit by lightning and crash, if
>> the accident investigators find a titless bulb, they're gonna hang
>> him out to dry -- even if he didn't know about it and it had nothing
>> to do with the crash.
>>
>> So when it comes to owner maintenance, I find it easier to tell
>> myself that any non-approved part can have a "tit" that I don't know
>> about and that I don't want to be responsible for messing up
>> somebody else's life -- even if it's a pretty long shot that I will..
>>
>> I find that easier to wrap my head around than taking an approach
>> that in other situations leads to throwing a kid out of school
>> because there's no semantic difference between a butterknife and a
>> K-Bar.
>>
>> Apologies if my strawman doesn't apply to your version of slippery
>> slopes.
>>
>> Don ("Semantic"? There must be a better word.)
>
> That's not typically how it works.... If you crash, the lawyers will
> go after deep pockets (if there are any). If you're mechanic doesn't
> have deep pockets, them finding the wrong landing light bulb on
> your airplane isn't going to make a hill of beans difference....
>
> Bela P. Havasreti
>
Perhaps not to settle a damage lawsuit, where the "deep pockets" make a
difference, but if that kind of thing is found during the investigation,
then the A&P's credentials may be in jeopardy. At the very least, it would
raise a cloud of suspicion about the quality of work done. Not being an
A&P, I don't know how strict the FAA's regulations are in this regard, but
if the line of responsibility is anywhere near as stringent as they are
for pilots, it would be a bad risk to take.

Neil

Peter Dohm

October 24th 06, 10:48 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Perhaps owners can only justify their investment by pride of ownership,
> > control of the equipment list, and having a particular aircraft cleaned
and
> > ready on demand. Perhaps renters can only justify their position in
terms
> > of freedom from most fixed costs and the flexibility of pay-as-you-go.
> > Perhaps neither can add safety as a primary justification--at least not
on
> > the basis of overall fleet statistics.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> Interestingly, in preparation for my response to the thread "Owner's
> Poll", I took a look at my actual expense of owning an airplane. (This
> is something I NEVER do, for fear of what I might see... ;-)
>
> To my delight, I found that it's costing between $8K - $15K annually to
> operate our aircraft. At our current rate of flying (around 200
> hours/year), that works out to between $40 and $75 per hour for a
> 140-knot, 1460 pound load hauling SOB of a plane.
>
> To say I'm happy with that would be an understatement -- I'm
> darned-near ecstatic. Considering that the equivalent aircraft on our
> field (the closest I can come is a 182) rents for over $100 per hour,
> it's nice to see that renting is actually MORE expensive than owning,
> at least for now. (This can change with one mishap or engine problem,
> of course.)
>
> Obviously that figure doesn't include acquisition costs and opportunity
> costs -- but over time aircraft tend to appreciate in value, so I am
> looking at our Pathfinder more as a long-term investment than as an
> asset.
>
> That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
That's in keeping with what I've always heard--at something less than 100
hours per year, owning becomes more economical than renting in an average
year.

Peter

Bela P. Havasreti

October 24th 06, 11:30 PM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:17:19 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> That's not typically how it works.... If you crash, the lawyers will
>> go after deep pockets (if there are any). If you're mechanic doesn't
>> have deep pockets, them finding the wrong landing light bulb on
>> your airplane isn't going to make a hill of beans difference....
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>>
>Perhaps not to settle a damage lawsuit, where the "deep pockets" make a
>difference, but if that kind of thing is found during the investigation,
>then the A&P's credentials may be in jeopardy. At the very least, it would
>raise a cloud of suspicion about the quality of work done. Not being an
>A&P, I don't know how strict the FAA's regulations are in this regard, but
>if the line of responsibility is anywhere near as stringent as they are
>for pilots, it would be a bad risk to take.
>
>Neil

I hear ya... but having helped recovered dozens of wrecked aircraft
and watched the NTSB and FAA do their thing (both at the accident
scene and later, during more extensive investigations), they are not
going to pull a landing light bulb and check it to see if it's got a
tit on it! Deviations from the FARs from a maintenance perspective
would have to lean towards the fairly grievous / obvious side and/or
be directly tied to (or contributory to) the cause of the crash for
any mechanic's credentials to come into question.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying "use whatever parts you want on your
airplane, you'll be OK and so will your mechanic". I'm just opining
that it's a bit of a stretch for a mechanic to suggest that using a
landing light bulb without a tit on it might put his career in
jeopardy! 8^)

"Where do you draw the line?" is a point of endless debate....
i.e., what constitutes a true safety of flight item, where any
deviation from the FARs can draw serious consequences vs
what might be considered common sense, and tends to have
little or no consequence on the safety and/or outcome of any
given flight. In the end, it's up to the mechanic who signs his
name on the line (as it should be).

Bela P. Havasreti