Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

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?

I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.

The club that I belong to has around 15 planes, few of which would pass a
beauty contest. However, we also have 2 full-time mechanics, so squawks
are handled promptly and the regs are strictly adhered to. I feel quite
safe in these planes.

Neil


Neil

If you mean installing a tractor light bulb instead of an
"aircraft" light bulb, sure, I know LOTS of owners like that.
Well, that's illegal. And I'm coming from a work standpoint here, but
you don't see mechanics doing that on transport catergory aircraft and
engines. Why should GA owners feel they are exempt from the same rules?

I don't know any other way to say this: Because that FAA rule is
stupid.

A tractor light bulb that is identical to the one that says "aircraft
landing light" on it costs half as much, simply because the marketing
departments know they can double the price of anything that says
"aircraft" on it. Personally, I use the real deals (only because I
haven't found a tractor equivalent to the three Q4509 landing light
bulbs my plane uses), but I woudn't worry about an owner that buys NAPA
landing lights.

Now, of course, you have to exercise some degree of intelligence when
working on a plane that you own. For example, is it okay to run an
extension cord under the panel from your cigar lighter over to your
yoke-mounted GPS? If you zip tie the wires so that they're not a trip
hazard (and can't get fouled in the rudder pedals) does this then
become a "permanant installation", and thus become illegal for an owner
to do?

Most owners would say running an extension cord is fine. Some would
not.

Now, how about installing a power port in the back seat for the kids to
use? This means running the wires behind the side panels and carpet,
and installing a jack in the side wall. Most owners would draw the
line at that, and would have an A&P sign off on their work (or hire
them to do it) -- but is it REALLY any harder than running the
extension cord in my first example? Marginally -- but just about any
guy with any automotive experience could do it.

So owning becomes a judgement thing.

(An aside: What *is* the correct spelling of the word
"judgement/judgment" nowadays? The dictionary lists both spellings as
correct.)

Now take a rental plane. That plane is owned by...somebody, often not
by anyone who flies it regularly. That plane is seen as a commodity,
as a useful means to an end -- not as a pampered and loved magic
carpet. Suddenly all those "border-line legal" maintenance items are
going straight through to someone's bottom line -- you don't think
there's intense pressure to "skate" on some of them?

I approach aircraft in much the same way I approach property. With a
building, look at the gutters and down-spouts, and within seconds
you'll have a good idea how well the building has been maintained.
With aircraft, look at the leading edges of the wings. Are there two
years worth of bugs there? Is there old oil coating the nose gear?
That's potential trouble -- and virtually every rental plane I ever
flew fit that description.

I just don't believe rental planes are receiving the same level of
maintenance as owner-operated planes -- and you would *think* that we
could pull some meaningful statistics to prove (or disprove) this.
Where's "Flying's" Ricard Collins when we need him? This is right up
his alley...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Ron Wanttaja writes:

The average General Aviation aircraft is more than 30 years old. A new plane
requires a cash outlay an order of magnitude higher. And *no* buyer is the very
first person to fly the aircraft. Not all ferry pilots are as genteel as
NW_Pilot.

I'd fix that by riding with the ferry pilot, or by picking the plane
up myself.

--
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.

This assumes that you are checked out in the plane, and that your insurance
company agrees. For many complex airplanes, companies might require 20-100
hours time in type, and 20 or more of dual instruction before being covered,
along with possibly an instructor sign-off. (an example is the Baron you
talk about)

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:


I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.



Bwahahahahaha!!! That's pretty funny!! G

"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.

"Neil Gould" wrote:
I don't know the answer to your question, however, the FARs for rentals
are more stringent than for privately owned & operated aircraft, so I'd
suspect that while many rentals may not be as pretty as privately-owned,
they are likely to be in better structural & mechanical condition.

Dale wrote:
Bwahahahahaha!!! That's pretty funny!! G

Yeah, it's funny, but that *is* the prevailing *assumption* among
renters, and the FBOs bank on it.

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.