Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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?

"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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

unicate 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.

unicate 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.

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