Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

The flying club I am a member of has 700+ members and 15 aircraft (+/-).
I have been a member of this same club for 25 years. In those 25 years,
I have had only two flights that I have cancelled and grounded the
aircraft.
One was a C182Q with high oil pressure. I knew something was wrong as I
flew this aircraft often and knew what was normal. The troubleshooting
in the shop found a cracked case.
The second aircraft I grounded was a PA28T-201RT (Turbo Arrow IV) which
backfired so badly during runup on the right mag I thought the engine
was going to come apart. The right mag was shot.
Other than those two instances, I have flown aircraft with intermittent
comm radios and panel lights that would not illuminate the gauge they
were attached to. Each of these was overcome with backup solutions
(second comm, EL rope).
The aircraft in my flying club are flown often by pilots with a full
range of experience. Between the instructors flying with the students
and the high time pilots mingling with the low time inexperienced
pilots, any mx squawks get picked up quickly.
The club is usually quick to take care of serious deficencies, although
the inoperative fuel gauge on one aircraft was deferred until the next
scheduled trip to the shop. This did cause me an actual pucker because I
lost track of time flown on that tank instead of watching the fuel
totalizer.

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.

"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.

OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
nearly died because of it.

As for fatalities, my limited anecdotal evidence suggests that the rental
beaters have a better safety record than the privately owned shiny
showplanes, if one includes only accidents with a mechanical failure in the
list of probable causes.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote:
OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
nearly died because of it.

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.

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.

Capt.Doug wrote:
Live and let live. Just don't cut someone off in the pattern.
Then we get ****y.


And don't leave coffee cups & candy wrappers in the plane for the next
renter. Then I get ****y...

I guess that should include used diapers and sic-sacs too (yes, I have
found those in rentals) Ewwww....

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

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.)

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

Hello all,
A disclaimer from the git-go: As a rental pilot, I respond to this
thread with limited experience. I am lucky to rent from a "Certified"
Cessna flight center that owns 1 152, 5 172's (including a new G1000), 1
172RG, 1 182, 1 206, and 1 PA23. This particular flight school also
employs 5 or 6 CFI's (one of whom is also an A&P), as well as two
full-time career flight instructors. There is also a FSDO directly
across the road from this FBO, and FAA employees regularly fly these
rental aircraft.

During the 150 hours that I have rented any one of those planes, I have
had only two occasions to write up a squawk. Once for an alternator
problem (discovered during the run-up), and once for a bad headset
connector. Both of those problems were immediately repaired.

I feel very confident that these planes receive top notch service based
upon the following:

1) Each plane receives thorough pre-flights from students under the
watchful eyes of CFI's.
2) Cessna has a vested interest in making certain that these planes are
airworthy.
3) Each of these planes is used by FAA folks; The FBO darn well makes
sure these planes are up to snuff at all times.
4) Any problems are dwelt with quickly and thorougly by mechanics who
they themselves fly those same planes.
5) All fuel tanks are topped off at the end of the day.
6) All who fly these planes are required to cover the cowels openings
during bird nesting seasons.

and lastly, and not necessarily a repair issue:
6) Each and every time the planes are fueled by line service, the wind
shields are cleaned (at least during the "bug" seasons).

Do I feel that these planes are airworthy? You bet.
Do I still do a thorough pre-flight and double check the maintenance
records before each flight? You bet.