"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.