Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

unicate wrote:
At our airport, there's a marked difference in how owners of planes at
tiedowns maintain their aircraft vs. owners of planes *in hangars*.

Emily wrote:
Airplanes in hangars sit just as long. I'm sure you know what that does
to an engine.

Of course I do. Yes, some airplane in hangars just sit, also. *Overall*,
however, at least at MY home airport, nearly everyone I know with a
plane in a hangar is pretty darn meticulous about legal maintenance, and
most people are very good about networking that info with each other.

Sure, they are probably built on the same assembly line (but maybe not)
and they meet the same specs (but maybe not), but (FAA bashing aside)
how do you know that this particular part is (or is not) as good as an
approved part?

Define "good".

If you mean "value for the dollar" good, well, obviously the
FAA-approved GE 4509 is the biggest rip-off on the market. It costs
twice as much as the equivalent tractor bulb.

If you mean "long life" good, Aviation Consumer magazine just did a
comparison, and the 4509 is not even close to being the longest-lasting
bulb. In fact, it didn't even make it to its measly 25-hour predicted
life.

If you mean "brighter" good, well, the two bulbs put out the same
lumens.

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

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

unicate wrote:
ssk 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*?

Emily:
SB's really aren't a good indicator of quality of maintenance. Some of
them are "mandatory" and yes, it's good to do them, but some are
"optional" and really don't do anything for you except send money back
to the manufacturer.

I know how Service Bulletins work. I never said they were an indicator
of anything. I was talking about the attitude that if it isn't required,
you don't have to "bother" with it.

On the other hand, an owner can be as legal and meticulous about their
airplane MX as humanly possible

Emily:
Most aren't.

I know many of the other airplane owners at my home airport and at other
airports in this area. Yes, there are some exceptions, but *most are* at
the hangar several times/week, fly often, and certainly *are* as legal
and meticulous as possible. I'm sorry if people you know aren't, but
statements like "most aren't" is simply one opinion.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

One thing *I* would be concerned about with respect to ANY electrical part
is whether it will start burning.

Now, I admit that I don't know what the certification standards are for an
aviation-approved light bulb, but I would hope that at some point along the
way it involves various safety standards to ensure that not only will the
part work as intended, conforming to the original design of the aircraft,
but will also not compromise the safety of the aircraft.

If I'm out plowing my field or hauling bales of hay and the lightbulb in my
tractor explodes, no big deal. Hopefully it hasn't been a dry season, or
I'm not near my parched wheat fields. But in any case, I have a pretty good
chance of simply walking away without any trouble at all. It's a bit
different when you're airborne and something like that happens.

Now, it is true that in some cases an aviation-approved part is manufactured
right alongside non-approved parts. But the certification process is
applied differently, and you are paying for that. The cost of a part is
more than the R&D that went into making it and the cost to manufacture the
part, it's even more than those things and a fair retail markup. It also
includes all of the FAA-mandated procedures that provide a proveably safe
part (and yes, much of that is just paperwork, but that's how it goes when
complying with safety regulations).

Your tractor-"approved" part has none of the aircraft-related certification
applied to it, and so you have no way of knowing whether it does or does not
comply with the same safety standards that apply to aircraft-approved parts.

I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow about
your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur to
you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use, the
FAA actually considers the safety of that part.

If an owner has taken it upon themselves to not only have read and
understood exactly the certification standards that are applied to
aviation-approved parts, but has also done the necessary work to ensure that
an otherwise-unapproved part meets those standards, then I would say that
owner is still acting illegally if they install that part, but at least they
can still lay claim to being safety-minded. However, I doubt you've done
all of that, and neither would most of the rest of us. It is far more
convenient to let the FAA and the parts suppliers worry about all that, and
just pay the higher price for a part.

And yes, I agree that the FAA standards are probably not the end-all, be-all
when it comes to aircraft safety. But it does define a minimum bar that
aircraft are expected to meet, and it seems foolish to me to knowingly
ignore even that minimum bar.

Pete

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

It doesn't really matter, unless you are writing the rules. In your
position, you only get to follow them (or not). Let's turn it around a
bit. You are thinking of buying an airplane, and you find that the
owner has declined to record his maintanance as required by the FAA.
This of course has no impact on safety, since it's just paperwork, and
the airplane flies just as well without that dumb bureaucrap. Of course
the landing light is the tractor bulb, and the stall switches (seven
hundred dollars from piper) were replaced with two dollar radio shack
switches when they failed. In fact, there are two in parallel, for
redundancy. One of the landing gear shocks turns out to be a truck
shock which the owner assures you is just as good.

The engine is just out of overhaul but the mechanic is at an airport a
hundred miles away. No problem - he fires up the plane and you both fly
there so you can speak to the mechanic. You fly this leg yourself, as a
test flight. He'll fly home (because he's paranoid about the dumb FAA
rules about sharing costs, so this makes it ok). While you're at the
shotp, he runs into a buddy who has a beer brewing hobby. So this pilot
samples a bit of his brew. Just a sip (maybe an ounce of beer). It's
not really a problem because you'll be talking to the mechanic for a
while, and by the time he gets back at the controls, it will be four
full hours, maybe more. The "eight hour bottle to throttle" rule is
stupid since it doesn't distinguish between a sip and a couple of
glasses. He's got a system where he's figured out a function of how
many ounces of beer he can have how many hours before flying - two hours
for a sip, four hours for half a glass - eight hours for one drink,
twelve hours for two drinks. It's lots more sensible than that hard and
fast FAA crap, since the FAA would let you fly eight hours after four
drinks if you weren't impaired. The FAA rules are for idiots who can't
figure this out.

So, you talk to his mechanic and he assures you that the engine is in
great shape, and shows you the oil analysis report. It =is= in great
shape according to that.

Five hours later he gets in the left seat, you get in the right seat,
and express some concern about his alcohol thing. "No problem, you can
be PIC", but I still have to fly the leg home. It's getting cloudy and
the return will be IFR.

He's rated. He's current and sharp. That is, he flies an hour on MSFS
every day practicing approaches. He has not done the FAA six in six in
a real airplane but he's sharper than most pilots who are "current".

On the way home the weather turns to crap, he's on top of it despite his
little sip of beer, and brings the thing down to minimums on a GPS
approach. No airport. The GPS shows he's right above the runway, so he
ducks down two hundred feet, finds the strip exactly where he said it
would be, flies a tight pattern and greases it in.

The DH is pretty high because of a large radio tower, but since he knows
where it is, he's comfortable going down another 250 feet if he has to.

Eagle flight needs pilots. Would you reccomend him?

You want to buy an airplane. Would you buy his?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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?

Comparing silly landing light regulations with life-and-death flight
rules does little to further the discussion.

But back to the topic: I see plenty of owners dinking around with their
planes inside their hangars every weekend, checking this, straightening
that, making sure every zip tie and hose is perfect. Quite frankly,
pride in ownership is one of the three reasons that I think owning a
plane is worth every penny, and I've spent many happy hours in my
hangar doing nothing but polishing parts that no one else (but my
mechanic and me) will ever see.

During this quality time, I've occasionally found little maintenance
issues that would otherwise go unnoticed. I've found exhaust pipe
clamps loose, drippy hoses, and loose electrical connections while
farting around inside the engine compartment, and in each case I have
been able to rectify them BEFORE they became a maintenance problem.

This is unlikely to happen as a renter. Unlike John Smith's happy
situation (where he belongs to a club with 25 rental aircraft that are
meticulously maintained) around here the rentals are all either owned
by the FBOs, or they're put on "the line" as a lease-back aircraft.
Not only would you have difficulty finding a renter pilot who would be
willing to take the time to do this type of stuff, but the FBO rules
would most likely prohibit it from happening.

An example: When I was a renter, Mary and I had a favorite plane, a
sweet little Cherokee 140 with a fresh engine. After six months of
renting it, the thing was an absolutely cosmetic disaster, with bug
guts hardened on to all the leading edges, and topsoil pounded into the
carpet on the floor.

Knowing what a shoe-string budget the FBO was running on (they weren't
about to pay a line boy to clean it), we proposed doing a
"plane-washing party", where all the renters would come out and spend
an afternoon cleaning that poor old dawg. We even volunteered to
provide the beer, and do a cookout (remember, this was in Wisconsin,
where beer at the airport is not only okay, it's *expected*), as an
incentive to get renters to participate.

The idea was met with absolute incredulity from the other renters.
Their attitude was, quite simply, "Why would I work to clean someone
else's plane?" -- and that was that. There was no pride in the machine
-- it was just a tool that they were borrowing from someone else --
period.

Saying that this "not my problem" attitude isn't common among renters
flies in the face of my personal experience, which isn't to say that
there aren't exceptions to the rule. But, again, IMHO most rental
birds are "ridden hard and put away wet" -- and there should be some
way to quantify this when comparing accidents due to mechanical
failure, if only the FAA would track it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

It doesn't really matter, unless you are writing the rules. In your
position, you only get to follow them (or not). Let's turn it around a
bit.

Big Snip of Fun Story

I hate to waste such a great narrative, Jose, but your premise is so
overblown that I can't even address it. For you to equate my attitude
toward using an unapproved (but identical -- maybe even superior)
landing light bulb with the attitudes of an IFR pilot drinking and
doing an unapproved instrument approach is just goofy, and does nothing
to further this discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So...how else can we compare the bulbs? What do you mean by "as good"?

I find it amusing that you preach "owners are safer", and even crow about
your own dedication to safety, even as it obviously doesn't even occur to
you that somewhere along the line in approving a part for aviation use, the
FAA actually considers the safety of that part.

Obviously when it comes to flight safety rules, FAA approval is
paramount on a certificated plane. But I wasn't talking about engines
or props here, Pete -- I was talking about a *landing light*.

Which, again, is pretty far afield from the topic of this thread. IMO,
rental planes are ridden hard and put away wet, compared to
owner-operated planes, and you would think there would be some way to
quantify this by examining accidents that were caused by mechanical
problems, if only the FAA/NTSB would ask the question.

Of course, in my experience the government is quite good at not asking
questions that they don't want answered.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:32:46 -0700, Xmnushal8y wrote:

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

Pilots should be more aware of the regulations than this.

But, while I knew that the only difference between rental and owned was
the 100 hour, and I also knew that the only difference between the 100
hour and the annual was the IA signature, I didn't - until I became
involved in MX myself - know just how much was possible WRT MX that wasn't
required.

As I mentioned in another posting, oil analysis is a good example of a
useful "inspection" tool that's not required. Not knowing about this, one
wouldn't know to ask the FBO if it is being done.

So I can see how one could easily fall into this mistaken belief. I did.

And, for obvious reasons, I don't think we can presume that the FBOs are
going to ever get better about teaching this.

- Andrew

I hate to waste such a great narrative, Jose, but your premise is so
overblown that I can't even address it. For you to equate my attitude
toward using an unapproved (but identical -- maybe even superior)
landing light bulb with the attitudes of an IFR pilot drinking and
doing an unapproved instrument approach is just goofy, and does nothing
to further this discussion.

You see, I disagree with that assessment.

And besides, you miss the point. He only drank a little bit. He knows
the FAA is too strict on this. He ducked under the minimums only when
he knew he was where he was (and was familiar with the terrain and the
tower). And there was the whole bit about the unapproved maintanance
and the lack of silly paperwork. We all know that the only paperwork
that makes an airplane fly is green and has dead presidents and such on it.

Who are you to disagree with his assessment of himself, his maintanance,
and his attitude? You are in the same position (objectively speaking)
as I am, disagreeing with your assessment of yourself, your maintanance,
and your attitude. That is, we are each "the other guy" in the
scenario. Each of us knows =we're= right, and "the other guy" is messed up.

Now, in the scenario I painted, where is the problem? Why is "one sip"
(and I specified the amount, it wasn't a "big sip") of beer five hours
before a flight not safer than two and a half drinks eight hours before?
It probably is, but that's the start down a slippery slope which can
easily end in an NTSB report. But so can replacing stall warning
switches and landing gear struts with unapproved parts (the homebuilding
market notwithstanding). If you have an "approved" airplane, it needs
to stay "approved", and that means following the rules. You don't get
to decide what they are, not with alcohol, not with aircraft parts, and
not with recordkeeping. Cut a corner (and get away with it) anywhere,
and more corners will be cut in the future.

And if the NTSB report shows that the unapproved part in somebody else's
airplane was installed when you were the owner, and an accident results,
I may lose my chance at staying at the premier aviation-themed motel in
Iowa.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.