Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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.

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.

"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

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

"Jose" wrote in message
news
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.

"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."

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

unicate 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...

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

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.