Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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.

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" 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.

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:
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.

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...