Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

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. That doesn't include your
tractor lightbulb.

The fact is, a bulb you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT legal for installation
in an aircraft. It is an unapproved part. Argue and bash the FAA all
you want,but it doesn't change the fact that what you are suggesting is
illegal.

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.

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.

Jay Honeck writes:

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.

It's a slippery slope.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

The fact is, it IS the same attitude. You think the FAA's rules about
approved parts are stupid, and Jose's pilot thought the FAA's rules
about alcohol are stupid. Both ignore them. Both are violating
regulations.

Look, I work for a manufacturer and also deal with aftermarket spares.
You wouldn't believe the problems that we run into because some fool
believes his garage manufacutred part is as good as the OEM's. We deal
with the FAA, other civil airworthiness authorities, and yes, even
DCIS. Reputable aftermarket companies take unapproved parts very
seriously, as well they should. Would you believe we ran across a
counterfeit turbine disk a few months ago? Do you think that's ok? Of
course you don't....and thankfully, because the FAA has rules, your
tractor bulb isn't either. The fact is, YOU do not have the authority
to decide what part is good and what isn't.

It's good that you publicize your views, though. Allows those of us
who want to stay far away from SUP's to not fly with you.

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

First, back to the original question of the thread: I don't know the true
answer either, but my hypothesis is that the rental fleet probably has a
better fatal accident record--even though I strongly suspect that the owner
operated airplanes (that actually fly) are safer by virtue of maintenance
and more carefull handling. My reasoning is simply that a pilot who is no
longer current is more likely to receive some assistance in getting current.

On the "side" issue of approved/certified parts: I believe it to be more an
issue of traceability than of absolute quality or reliability. In other
words, the failure history of traceable parts is usefull in the complilation
of ADs and Service Bulletins.

To whatever extent light bulbs are a safety items, I would suggest that
annunciator lights are more important than landing lights. The most
infamous case that I can recall of an annunciator light starting a fatal
chain of events involved the nose gear annunciator lamp on an L-1011
operated by Eastern Airlines--which ultimately crashed in the Florida
Everglades. OTOH, I can't think of any instance in which a failed light
bulb caused any problem other than as a distraction.

Peter

"Emily" wrote:
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.

And your statement that most owners with hangars *aren't* as meticulous
and legal as humanly possible is *not* an elitist attitude that does GA
no favors? You have no more right to make that assumption than anyone
assuming that most renters abuse airplanes.

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.

Pilots, renters and owners are all subject to the rules. Some bend/break
them; others follow them to the letter. There isn't any one group that
does more illegal stuff than another -- there are owners *and*
FBOs/schools that cut corners, and pilots who don't follow all the
rules. You seem to be implying that one group is more guilty than
another. Unless you can point to some legitimate stats, that's just your
opinion.

unicate wrote:
There isn't any one group that
does more illegal stuff than another -- there are owners *and*
FBOs/schools that cut corners, and pilots who don't follow all the
rules. You seem to be implying that one group is more guilty than
another.

Can you read? I've said repeatedly that it has nothing to do with who
owns and who rents. A bad pilot who breaks rules and beats up an
airplane is going to do so if he rents or owns...but that's something
Jay doesn't see.

What I DID say is that it's an elitist attitude to think renters are
harder on planes than anyone else.

Jay Honeck wrote:

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*.

A landing light is still certificated under Par 21, which blows your
idea out of the water.

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.