Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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"

NTSB reports do not reflect the ownership status, only the FAR under which
the flight was being conducted. But you knew that.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
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"

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.

Interesting. I don't have any studies, but from a strictly maintenance
standpoint, I see things completely opposite. Every single rental
aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
qualified mechanics with factory training. I'm picky about what I fly.

Some of the owners I know? They just go out and do whatever to their
airplanes, legal/safe or not. It's the "it's my plane, I can do what I
want to it" mentality.

On Oct 21, 7:31 pm, Emily wrote:
Interesting. I don't have any studies, but from a strictly maintenance
standpoint, I see things completely opposite. Every single rental
aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
qualified mechanics with factory training. I'm picky about what I fly.

Some of the owners I know? They just go out and do whatever to their
airplanes, legal/safe or not. It's the "it's my plane, I can do what I
want to it" mentality.

I'd agree. I've flown plenty of rental and "Working" planes, and while
they are ugly to look at (torn up interiors, chipped paint, etc.) they
tend to be generally well maintained underneath. Required 100 hour
inspections mean that cables, spars, etc. are getting looked at as much
as once a month or two rather than once a year. My experience has been
that Owner/pilots are more likely to cut corners on maintenance issues
that they do not see as a safety issue.

The reality is however, that maintenance induce accidents are
relatively rare. If there is a statistic significant increase in the
accident rate for rentals, its likely due to the comparably less
proficiency that renters have compared to owners. I'd venture to guess
that in the broad scheme of things, the accident rate for rentals is
likely lower as high insurance rates and renter requirements discourage
flight schools from putting more accident-prone aircraft on the rental
line.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:27:47 -0700, Brad wrote:

I'd agree. I've flown plenty of rental and "Working" planes, and while
they are ugly to look at (torn up interiors, chipped paint, etc.) they
tend to be generally well maintained underneath. Required 100 hour
inspections mean that cables, spars, etc. are getting looked at as much as
once a month or two rather than once a year. My experience has been that
Owner/pilots are more likely to cut corners on maintenance issues that
they do not see as a safety issue.

I'd say that the bag is mixed on both sides. During my PPL training, the
aircraft were in a state that would - had I known what I know now - worry
me. It's very possible that all the flaws I saw were all there were to
see, and that the actual underlying MX was flawless. But how would I know?

Another FBO on the same field had newer and better maintained airplanes.
On the other hand, how do I know that all the effort wasn't spent on
keeping the plane looking good, with corners cut underneath? I don't.

Still, I could easily see one shop taking MX more seriously than the
other. Sure, the rentals are required to have 100 hour inspections. But,
as far as I recall, there's no requirement for (for example) oil analysis.
So there's room for "good MX" and "bad MX".

I'm sensitive to that at the moment as that analysis just told us of a
possible problem in one engine in the partnership to which I belong. The
question arose: were we safer in that airplane (where all MX people,
including Mattituck, said that the proper response was to fly it for 15
hours and then recheck, but for one A&P who said that the
200-hour-over-TBO engine should be overhauled immediately) or in a rental
airplane that wasn't given oil analysis.

After all, if we did do the analysis we'd not know about the copper in the
oil. So who can tell about the engines on the rental fleet?

- Andrew

Interesting. I don't have any studies, but from a strictly maintenance
standpoint, I see things completely opposite. Every single rental
aircraft I have flown is meticulously maintained, by certificated and
qualified mechanics with factory training. I'm picky about what I fly.

Well, with FBOs hurting to make a penny, I can vouch for the fact that
they sometimes cut corners on maintenance to "keep 'em flying".

My '75 Warrior was such a bird. This was my first plane, back in '98,
and I bought it from a Wisconsin FBO who (unbeknownst to me at the
time) was in the process of going belly up. We found all sorts of
things wrong at the first annual, but the one that blew me away (and
could have killed me) was the fact that they had not installed the
proper length push-rods after replacing a cylinder.

When the cylinder failed (again) after less than 100 hours, my mechanic
found that that FBO simply had omitted the rotator cap, to make the
(too long) push rod work.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but I flew all sorts of rental
birds before then that were, well, rough. Knowing what I know now,
there are at least two that I should have refused to fly -- but I was
inexperienced with maintenance matters, as are most renters. When
you're a renter, you write stuff on a squawk sheet (if there *is* a
squawk sheet), and hope for the best, never knowing what (if anything)
is actually done.

I've had throttle cables break on rentals, I've had doors not latch,
I've experienced TWO complete electrical failures (in two different
planes, from two different FBOs), and I once drained over a QUART of
water from the tanks of a rental Cherokee.

As for owners who cut corners, I guess it depends on what you mean by a
"corner." 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. I'm sure they're
out there, but I haven't met them.

I suppose there is no way to glean any kind of valid information from
the accident reports, but it sure seems like the rental fleet in some
markets is, at best, suspect.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
snip
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?
And I'll stop there before it turns into an EAA rant.

but it sure seems like the rental fleet in some
markets is, at best, suspect.
Maybe I've just had good luck, but I've never seen it.

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.
Anti-authority, anyone? It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid, it's
not an excuse for breaking it. Not to be dramatic, but do you think
having a DH on an approach is stupid? A pilot who will break a
seemingly pointless rule shows a lack of judgment and will eventually
decided he doesn't need to follow other regulations.

And frankly, it's not stupid. A tractor bulb is an unapproved part. If
you want proof a bulb is important, I know a DAR whose PMI allows him to
issue export 8130's on bulbs...because the PMI believes they are
critical to safety (that's not the exact definition, but I can't
remember what it is without digging up the order).

So owning becomes a judgement thing.
I don't believe it's a judgment thing. I believe it's a following the
FAR's and manufacturer's manuals thing. The manuals and FAR's CLEARLY
spell out maintenance to be performed and do not leave any room for
judgment.


(An aside: What *is* the correct spelling of the word
"judgement/judgment" nowadays? The dictionary lists both spellings as
correct.)
Dunno, spell checked flagged mine and yours above, which is strange.

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.
You're kidding me, right? You're actually saying that those of us who
rent love an airplane less than those of us who own one? That's just
not true. I have had students who own and students who rent, so I've
see this from both sides and your above view is just totally false. The
pilots who take risks and treat aircraft like crap are going to do it
whether or not they own or rent. It has 100% to do with the pilot and
not the airplane.

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?
No, I don't. And if there is, it has to do with the personality of the
mechanic. A mechanic who skirts corners is going to do the same whether
he works on a rental or an aircraft that someone else owns.

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 don't know where you're renting airplanes, then.

I just don't believe rental planes are receiving the same level of
maintenance as owner-operated planes
You're believing wrong, then. Most rental aircraft are actually being
maintained IAW with FAR's, something I can't say for owned aircraft.
Owners think they are above the law, and while they don't think they are
taking safety shortcuts, most of the time they aren't knowledgeable to
know the difference.

FInally, as has been pointed out, maintenance mistakes contribute to
VERY few fatal accidents and that IS documented.