Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

Newps wrote:
Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Wal-Mart was an example. My point was, you are not legally allowed to
install an unapproved part on an aircraft.

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...


Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.


My recollection exactly. IIRC, the same was true for fuses--which were not
"free stock" only because failures were tallied so that their cause could be
tracked.

BTW, my KF list currently stands at "1" for the entire world community of
newsgroup participants; but Emily is cruisin' for inclusion!

Be my guest. I work for a large manufacturer and my experience is with
transport catergory aircraft parts that you can't buy on the street.
I've been involved with SUP investigations with both the FAA and DCIS.
You can learn from my experience or bust regs...but you're not selling
me aircraft parts, so I don't really care which it is.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.


My recollection exactly. IIRC, the same was true for fuses--which were not
"free stock" only because failures were tallied so that their cause could be
tracked.

BTW, my KF list currently stands at "1" for the entire world community of
newsgroup participants; but Emily is cruisin' for inclusion!

Peter

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps wrote:



Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
into a notch in the mounting cutout?

Don

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
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.)

I don't know of any studies, just my anecdotal evidence to the contrary
point of view. At my local GA airport there are some school rentals that
look like crap and there are some owner-flown shiny showplanes. The crappy
looking rentals have renters crawling all over them before each and every
flight looking for discrepencies with a keen eye on impressing their
instructor by finding something wrong. The oil changes, 100 hour
inspections, and ADs are current or else the examiners wouldn't give
checkrides. The rentals look like crap because the money goes into
maintenance instead of paint and interior.

OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
nearly died because of it.

As for fatalities, my limited anecdotal evidence suggests that the rental
beaters have a better safety record than the privately owned shiny
showplanes, if one includes only accidents with a mechanical failure in the
list of probable causes.

D.

I'd like a copy Emily. Please send to .

TIA

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

I have a great powerpoint presentation that you might be interested in.
It describes the approved way to manufacture an aircraft part. Let me
know.

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps wrote:



Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.

Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
into a notch in the mounting cutout?

Don

I don't know either, but I doubt it. I did a quick search and found some
discussion regarding the 4509, Q4509, and H4509. Apparently some work has
been done with regard to substitution--with mixed results. Obviously, for
an Amateur-Built and given the choice of only those three, I would opt for
the H4509. But the choices get more interesting when you need an STC.
There was an interesting discussion at:
http://www.grumman.net/specific/LandingLight.txt

Basically, the 4509 is a 25 hour bulb, the Q4509 is a 100 hour bulb, and the
H4509 is a halogen replacement. Also, even when you just stay with the one
you have, prices vary wildly--so it pays to shop.

In addition, it appears that you no longer need to "re-invent the wheel" if
you really operate an airplane at night --rather than just using the landing
lights for better daytime visibility in the airport area. Some (vendor)
information regarding HID replacements for the 4509 series of lamps is
available at:
http://www.floatsalaska.com/Floats_B...ghts_Page.aspx

I am curious what the rest of you think.

Regards,

Peter

"Capt.Doug" wrote:
OTOH, unlike your experiences, I know many active pilot/owners who haven't
had an annual or a BFR or even a medical for years. Their airplanes are
shiny, but are they safe? I've known owners who did their own maintenance,
and died because of it. I've known owners who felt their airplanes were so
nice that they could forego pre-flight inspections, and died because of it.
I've known an owner who did no maintenance other than a paint job, and
nearly died because of it.

Wow, you know "many active pilot/owners" who haven't had an annual, BFR
or medical "for years"? Where is this? Pilots in other parts must be
very different. I know many of pilot/owners at our airport, and NONE
fall into the categories you described above.

Emily wrote:
Newps wrote:

Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.


Wal-Mart was an example. My point was, you are not legally allowed to
install an unapproved part on an aircraft.

There are many parts on an aircraft that do not need to be aircraft
parts. An example would be if you wanted to add a cig lighter port.
Any one from Wally World or Radio Shack will do.

Don Tuite wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:33:52 -0600, Newps wrote:



Emily wrote:


The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part.



Bull****. If it is the approved bulb then it is irrelavant where I buy
it. The 4509 comes to mind. Those are available everywhere and are
used in a number of non aircraft applications.


Doesn't only the aircraft version have the tit on the back that fits
into a notch in the mounting cutout?



Nope.