Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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.

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.

"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.

unicate wrote:
snip

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*?
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.

On the other hand, an owner can be as legal and meticulous about their
airplane MX as humanly possible
Most aren't.

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.

unicate wrote:


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.

I certainly agree. Don't know about other airports but AFAIK the AC owners
at our field are fairly meticulous about maintaining our planes. There are
no abandoned junkers sitting around or in hangars. There are a couple of
"projects" under way but IMHO that's a sign of a healthy airport.

Sorry its so bad where Emily lives. Perhaps the taxes are excessive...

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.

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"

Jay Honeck wrote:

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

Are you kidding? Both are breaking rules. The fact is, the FAA makes
the rules, you don't. As a CFI, I stay FAR away from pilots who think
ANY rule doesn't apply to them.


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.

I'm finally beginning to see why everyone else thinks GA pilots are
elitist. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect this is the cause of the
entire thread.

and in each case I have
been able to rectify them BEFORE they became a maintenance problem.

So you're performing maintenance on your plane? Do you have an A&P?
Are you 100% certain that the maintenance you are performing falls
under the definition of preventative? Have you read §43 Appendix A?
Have you read §43.3?

This is unlikely to happen as a renter.

I think what you're actually trying to prove is that those of us who
rent abuse planes and don't take any pride in taking care of them.
Think like that if you wish, but it's an elitist attitude and one that
does GA no favors. Owning an aircraft does not entitle you to violate
any regulation, especially Part 43 or 21...and unfortunately, those are
the ones I see owners violating most frequently. I've refused to
instruct owners who perform illegal maintenance, and I've refused to
fly with renters who bust minimums. It has nothing to do with who owns
the plane, and everything to do with the mentality of the pilot.
You've proven in this thread that you think you are above the FAR's,
which is pretty sad.