Are You Flying a "Beater?"

AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
mechanical condition.

I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of the
planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
their own power.

As a renter, I flew planes that (on occasion) had doors that wouldn't latch,
lorans that didn't work, had sticky throttles, questionable radios, and
leaky fuel caps -- and those were just the defects I, as a new, renter
pilot, could detect. God only knows what was going on under the cowl.

I once flew a rental plane on a long cross-country that did not have any
valve cover gaskets installed on the right side of the engine. Oil covered
the plane, and scared the bejeesus out of us when we landed. (The A&P's
helper who "forgot" to install them was summarily fired for this, BTW.)

As an owner, I have endeavored to keep my planes pristine, with only the
best maintenance and accessories. IMHO, this is the only way to treat a
machine that carries my family several thousand feet into the sky -- yet, it
is obvious that there are many pilots and owners who don't see it that way.

I personally know a pilot who keeps his automobiles and motorcycles
maintained to perfection -- yet scrimps and cheats on his airplane
maintenance. He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO, and flying around on upholstery
that has metal sticking through the mesh. His panel is mostly
non-functional, the paint is long gone, and all plastic parts are badly
cracked and chipped.

It's almost as if he feels like he's beating "the system" by scrimping like
this -- he likes to brag about how little it costs him to fly -- yet most of
us on the field just think he's acting irrationally.

How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
does? What's going on here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck wrote:
How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
does? What's going on here?

Flying a beater is a false economy - or rather, it's a false economy to
skimp so it becomes a beater. The trouble is once it becomes a beater,
it's vicious circle - often it costs more to keep it running as a
marginal beater than it would cost if it had been kept in good condition
all along. Of course, the cost to turn a beater into a nice plane is so
high, once a plane's a beater, it's unlikely it will ever be anything
other than a beater.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53...
AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
mechanical condition.

I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of
the
planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
their own power.

snip

As an owner, I have endeavored to keep my planes pristine, with only the
best maintenance and accessories. IMHO, this is the only way to treat a
machine that carries my family several thousand feet into the sky -- yet,
it
is obvious that there are many pilots and owners who don't see it that
way.

While I agree with your perceptions, keep in mind that the article focuses
on owners who THINK the airplane is sound, when it really isn't.

Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
business expenses. ;-))

For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
monthly budget item.
I suspect the rise of insurance and fuel costs in the past several
years has siphoned off some of the money that previously went toward
maintenance and repair.

Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
business expenses. ;-))

True. But it 'tweren't always this way.

For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
monthly budget item.

Understood. However, IMHO these things shouldn't be considered "optional."
Doing so is folly, as Dylan already pointed out -- and the risks are grave.

Finding the line between frugality and reckless disregard for basic
maintenance is not easy. But I've seen too many that have crossed that
line, IMHO.

From a renter's standpoint, the system can be stacked against you. As a
renter you have almost no leverage to make changes for the better. Sure,
you can bitch and turn in squawk sheets -- but in many communities there is
only one FBO, and one place to rent. If you don't like their maintenance,
you simply can't fly.

I suspect this fact has turned more renters into owners than any other
reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Cc7yc.29163$Sw.5688@attbi_s51...
Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
business expenses. ;-))

True. But it 'tweren't always this way.

For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
monthly budget item.

Understood. However, IMHO these things shouldn't be considered
"optional."
Doing so is folly, as Dylan already pointed out -- and the risks are
grave.

Finding the line between frugality and reckless disregard for basic
maintenance is not easy. But I've seen too many that have crossed that
line, IMHO.

From a renter's standpoint, the system can be stacked against you. As a
renter you have almost no leverage to make changes for the better. Sure,
you can bitch and turn in squawk sheets -- but in many communities there
is
only one FBO, and one place to rent. If you don't like their maintenance,
you simply can't fly.

I suspect this fact has turned more renters into owners than any other
reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I treat/maintain our airplane just like my scuba gear..

Both "life support" systems....

Dave



On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:50:57 -0600, "Newps"
wrote:

Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.

In article , Newps
wrote:

Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.

I was going to make a posting about shiny new paint jobs attracting
aircraft/parts/avionics thieves. Look out on the ramp, which would you
be more attracted to and think the better equipment? The one with the
nice shiny paint job? Or, the one with faded, flaking paint?

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , Newps
wrote:

Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they
are in
perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.

I was going to make a posting about shiny new paint jobs attracting
aircraft/parts/avionics thieves. Look out on the ramp, which would you
be more attracted to and think the better equipment? The one with the
nice shiny paint job? Or, the one with faded, flaking paint?

I dunno...I was looking at a early 80's model F33 a while ago that was
pristine on the outside, and had an old analog DME on the inside.
mechanically it was okay.

I dunno...I was looking at a early 80's model F33 a while ago that was
pristine on the outside, and had an old analog DME on the inside.
mechanically it was okay.

IMHO, it's sorta like gutters on a house. You can often tell more about a
home owner from his gutters than from his resume.

In my experience the outside of the plane usually matches the inside --
unless it's a new owner in the midst of upgrades.

Avionics are an entirely different animal. I've seen absolutely pristine
aircraft with totally antiquated, out-dated avionics, simply because that's
what the owner knows and feels most comfortable with. But I have yet to
find a bug-encrusted, oil-covered, bald-tired plane that wasn't questionable
mechanically.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"