Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
quite a few threads.

If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...

You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or Jay
Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.

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.

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

Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?

If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance" you have officially
announced your lifetime membership in the "Box of Rocks" category.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


I believe that you have summed it up quite well, Jay.

I just took another look at the list of approved pilot performed
maintenance, and would suggest that it covers the majority of maintenence
for a typical aircraft in a typical year. It does not include overhaul,
complex repairs, or annual inspection; but does allow the pilot to perform a
lot of the preparatory work for each of those. Therefore, clearly, when the
removal and replacement of covers and the assembling of required documents
is included, the pilot is in fact authorized under Part 43 to contribute the
majority of labor hours to the maintenance and inspection of the
aircraft--even when the annual condition inspection is included. Any
supervised work is additional.

Peter

Dave Stadt wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jay Honeck wrote:
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".

Manufacturered in an approved way. That means it's manufactured in a
manner acceptable to the Adminstrator.

Which in many cases means anything but "good." In some cases it means
"junk."

Doesn't matter. It's what's legal.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-22, Emily wrote:
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?

You don't have to be an A&P to do work on your aircraft legally - you
just need to be supervised by an A&P.

I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
supervised by an A&P? How many actually know what they are doing?

Michael wrote:
Emily wrote:
Are you kidding? Both are breaking rules.

Yes, that's true. But hey, if you want to go for hyperbole, so can I.
The people who founded this country were breaking the rules. When
rules are unreasonable, the right thing to do is break them.

After exhausting all over options. I can read the Declaration, too,
but none of those men just decided to break a rule to break a rule.


As a CFI (ASMEL, IA, G), ATP, and A&P - I think you're deluded. Rules
don't keep you safe - good decisionmaking keeps you safe. Sometimes
good decisionmaking means ignoring what some bureaucrat decided.

You might be right, but I choose to stay away from pilots who break
rules. I don't need my certificates (yes, I can play the letter game,
too, with ASEL, AMEL, IA, AGI, IGI, and A&P) in jeopardy because
someone decided to play by his own rules.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Uh, you said you feel ok with violating an FAR if you think it is
unreasonable.

Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?

I know quite a bit about renting. I never claimed to know anything
about airplane ownership and yes, I am quite qualified to spout FAR's.
I do it for a living and according to my PMI, I've never been wrong.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Uh, you said you feel ok with violating an FAR if you think it is
unreasonable.

Emily, that's the goofiest, most twisted out of context reply I've read
here in many years -- and that's really saying something. You clearly
know little about airplane ownership (and not much more about renting),
yet you feel qualified to spout FARs?

I know quite a bit about renting. I never claimed to know anything
about airplane ownership and yes, I am quite qualified to spout FAR's.
I do it for a living and folks here are the first who've had any
problems with it. YES, most of my experience is not with GA aircraft.
YES, after running into at least one SUP a week, I am a little
sensitive to people who deliberately install unapproved parts on
aircraft. If that makes me crazy, so be it....my employer thanks me
for it.

In article . com,
"Emily" wrote:

You don't have to be an A&P to do work on your aircraft legally - you
just need to be supervised by an A&P.

I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
supervised by an A&P?

I am.

How many actually know what they are doing?

um. That's one reason I get supervised by an A&P. One of
Jerry's rules, if you don't know what you are doing, make sure you
are dealing with someone who does.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
Eh? How did you make THAT leap? Or ANY of those leaps?

Not to speak for Emily, but I made that leap long ago, on the basis of
quite a few threads.

If you think that an owner polishing and pampering his/her bird, making
sure that every working part is functioning perfectly at all times, is
tantamount to "performing illegal maintenance"...

You were talking about illegally replacing a landing light with an
unapproved part. Now I agree with you that the approval process is too
daunting for best safety, but I disagree with you that Joe Pilot (or Jay
Pilot) should be allowed to do different because he thinks so.

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.

The light bulb issue is not so obvious as it at first appears. For example,
we did not actually establish whether or not there was more than one variant
of the 4509 or of the Q4509, whether they were regarded as interchangeable,
or whether there was any difference between brands. A call to Piper, or
even to the local FSDO, could be illuminating.

As to the issue of the "notch" and "tit" elsewhere in this thread: I seen
and heard a few mechanics blow some smoke over the years. Every traditional
sealed beam bulb that I have ever examined has included a means of locking
it in a particular orientation in the "bucket". Where there is both a high
and low bean, the requirement is clear. In single filament bulbs, I suspect
that it is mainly for interchangeability of the "buckets"; although some
bulbs do have different horizontal and vertical beam spreads.

My best guess is that the highest prices have little to do with quality or
approval, but much to do with low inventory turnover. Some parts may be
stocked as a courtesy, and therefore held in inventory for long periods.
There may also have been a shipping cost associated with only one or two
light bulbs.

Peter

"Emily" wrote:
I'm familiar with the regs. But how many owners are actually
supervised by an A&P?

All that I know of. I don't know *anyone* who does anything other than
legal, preventive MX on their own airplane without being advised and
supervised by an A&P, and most have the A&P check the preventive stuff,
too.

How many actually know what they are doing?

Depends what the job is. If it's turning a screwdriver, *all* know what
they're doing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to clean things,
either. Other things vary.

Either you just have a really LOW opinion of the airplane owners in your
area, or the owners there are very different. Is there a shortage of
A&Ps there? None of the owners here are stupid enough to do work when
they "don't know what they're doing" on an airplane they and/or someone
they love are going to fly.