Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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?

Some are, some aren't. A landing light, for instance, is not required for night
flight. I've flown my plane at night, and it doesn't have one. Heck, it
doesn't have instrument lights, either... I used a chemlight.

If it *did* have a landing light, I'd feel no compunction about using a tractor
bulb instead. If one ain't required, there's no reason to get all formal about
it. It would at least feel at home with all the other "Aircraft and Tractor
Supply Company" and "Home Depot Aerospace" parts on board.... :-)


Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


Some are, some aren't. A landing light, for instance, is not required for
night flight.

unless of course you are operating it for hire as required by
14 CFR 91.205(c)(4)

--Sylvain

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.

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.

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".

If you mean "value for the dollar" good, well, obviously the
FAA-approved GE 4509 is the biggest rip-off on the market. It costs
twice as much as the equivalent tractor bulb.

If you mean "long life" good, Aviation Consumer magazine just did a
comparison, and the 4509 is not even close to being the longest-lasting
bulb. In fact, it didn't even make it to its measly 25-hour predicted
life.

If you mean "brighter" good, well, the two bulbs put out the same
lumens.

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

One thing *I* would be concerned about with respect to ANY electrical part
is whether it will start burning.

Now, I admit that I don't know what the certification standards are for an
aviation-approved light bulb, but I would hope that at some point along the
way it involves various safety standards to ensure that not only will the
part work as intended, conforming to the original design of the aircraft,
but will also not compromise the safety of the aircraft.

If I'm out plowing my field or hauling bales of hay and the lightbulb in my
tractor explodes, no big deal. Hopefully it hasn't been a dry season, or
I'm not near my parched wheat fields. But in any case, I have a pretty good
chance of simply walking away without any trouble at all. It's a bit
different when you're airborne and something like that happens.

Now, it is true that in some cases an aviation-approved part is manufactured
right alongside non-approved parts. But the certification process is
applied differently, and you are paying for that. The cost of a part is
more than the R&D that went into making it and the cost to manufacture the
part, it's even more than those things and a fair retail markup. It also
includes all of the FAA-mandated procedures that provide a proveably safe
part (and yes, much of that is just paperwork, but that's how it goes when
complying with safety regulations).

Your tractor-"approved" part has none of the aircraft-related certification
applied to it, and so you have no way of knowing whether it does or does not
comply with the same safety standards that apply to aircraft-approved parts.

I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow about
your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur to
you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use, the
FAA actually considers the safety of that part.

If an owner has taken it upon themselves to not only have read and
understood exactly the certification standards that are applied to
aviation-approved parts, but has also done the necessary work to ensure that
an otherwise-unapproved part meets those standards, then I would say that
owner is still acting illegally if they install that part, but at least they
can still lay claim to being safety-minded. However, I doubt you've done
all of that, and neither would most of the rest of us. It is far more
convenient to let the FAA and the parts suppliers worry about all that, and
just pay the higher price for a part.

And yes, I agree that the FAA standards are probably not the end-all, be-all
when it comes to aircraft safety. But it does define a minimum bar that
aircraft are expected to meet, and it seems foolish to me to knowingly
ignore even that minimum bar.

Pete

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

It doesn't really matter, unless you are writing the rules. In your
position, you only get to follow them (or not). Let's turn it around a
bit. You are thinking of buying an airplane, and you find that the
owner has declined to record his maintanance as required by the FAA.
This of course has no impact on safety, since it's just paperwork, and
the airplane flies just as well without that dumb bureaucrap. Of course
the landing light is the tractor bulb, and the stall switches (seven
hundred dollars from piper) were replaced with two dollar radio shack
switches when they failed. In fact, there are two in parallel, for
redundancy. One of the landing gear shocks turns out to be a truck
shock which the owner assures you is just as good.

The engine is just out of overhaul but the mechanic is at an airport a
hundred miles away. No problem - he fires up the plane and you both fly
there so you can speak to the mechanic. You fly this leg yourself, as a
test flight. He'll fly home (because he's paranoid about the dumb FAA
rules about sharing costs, so this makes it ok). While you're at the
shotp, he runs into a buddy who has a beer brewing hobby. So this pilot
samples a bit of his brew. Just a sip (maybe an ounce of beer). It's
not really a problem because you'll be talking to the mechanic for a
while, and by the time he gets back at the controls, it will be four
full hours, maybe more. The "eight hour bottle to throttle" rule is
stupid since it doesn't distinguish between a sip and a couple of
glasses. He's got a system where he's figured out a function of how
many ounces of beer he can have how many hours before flying - two hours
for a sip, four hours for half a glass - eight hours for one drink,
twelve hours for two drinks. It's lots more sensible than that hard and
fast FAA crap, since the FAA would let you fly eight hours after four
drinks if you weren't impaired. The FAA rules are for idiots who can't
figure this out.

So, you talk to his mechanic and he assures you that the engine is in
great shape, and shows you the oil analysis report. It =is= in great
shape according to that.

Five hours later he gets in the left seat, you get in the right seat,
and express some concern about his alcohol thing. "No problem, you can
be PIC", but I still have to fly the leg home. It's getting cloudy and
the return will be IFR.

He's rated. He's current and sharp. That is, he flies an hour on MSFS
every day practicing approaches. He has not done the FAA six in six in
a real airplane but he's sharper than most pilots who are "current".

On the way home the weather turns to crap, he's on top of it despite his
little sip of beer, and brings the thing down to minimums on a GPS
approach. No airport. The GPS shows he's right above the runway, so he
ducks down two hundred feet, finds the strip exactly where he said it
would be, flies a tight pattern and greases it in.

The DH is pretty high because of a large radio tower, but since he knows
where it is, he's comfortable going down another 250 feet if he has to.

Eagle flight needs pilots. Would you reccomend him?

You want to buy an airplane. Would you buy his?

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.

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. That doesn't include your
tractor lightbulb.

The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part. Argue and bash the FAA all
you want,but it doesn't change the fact that what you are suggesting is
illegal.

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

I have a great powerpoint presentation that you might be interested in.
It describes the approved way to manufacture an aircraft part. Let me
know.