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