Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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

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?

"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

"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.

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.

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*.

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.