Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps owners can only justify their investment by pride of ownership,
control of the equipment list, and having a particular aircraft cleaned
and
ready on demand. Perhaps renters can only justify their position in
terms
of freedom from most fixed costs and the flexibility of pay-as-you-go.
Perhaps neither can add safety as a primary justification--at least not
on
the basis of overall fleet statistics.

Perhaps.

Interestingly, in preparation for my response to the thread "Owner's
Poll", I took a look at my actual expense of owning an airplane. (This
is something I NEVER do, for fear of what I might see... ;-)

To my delight, I found that it's costing between $8K - $15K annually to
operate our aircraft. At our current rate of flying (around 200
hours/year), that works out to between $40 and $75 per hour for a
140-knot, 1460 pound load hauling SOB of a plane.

To say I'm happy with that would be an understatement -- I'm
darned-near ecstatic. Considering that the equivalent aircraft on our
field (the closest I can come is a 182) rents for over $100 per hour,
it's nice to see that renting is actually MORE expensive than owning,
at least for now. (This can change with one mishap or engine problem,
of course.)

Obviously that figure doesn't include acquisition costs and opportunity
costs -- but over time aircraft tend to appreciate in value, so I am
looking at our Pathfinder more as a long-term investment than as an
asset.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it...

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

That's in keeping with what I've always heard--at something less than 100
hours per year, owning becomes more economical than renting in an average
year.

Peter

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:17:19 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

snip

That's not typically how it works.... If you crash, the lawyers will
go after deep pockets (if there are any). If you're mechanic doesn't
have deep pockets, them finding the wrong landing light bulb on
your airplane isn't going to make a hill of beans difference....

Bela P. Havasreti

Perhaps not to settle a damage lawsuit, where the "deep pockets" make a
difference, but if that kind of thing is found during the investigation,
then the A&P's credentials may be in jeopardy. At the very least, it would
raise a cloud of suspicion about the quality of work done. Not being an
A&P, I don't know how strict the FAA's regulations are in this regard, but
if the line of responsibility is anywhere near as stringent as they are
for pilots, it would be a bad risk to take.

Neil

I hear ya... but having helped recovered dozens of wrecked aircraft
and watched the NTSB and FAA do their thing (both at the accident
scene and later, during more extensive investigations), they are not
going to pull a landing light bulb and check it to see if it's got a
tit on it! Deviations from the FARs from a maintenance perspective
would have to lean towards the fairly grievous / obvious side and/or
be directly tied to (or contributory to) the cause of the crash for
any mechanic's credentials to come into question.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying "use whatever parts you want on your
airplane, you'll be OK and so will your mechanic". I'm just opining
that it's a bit of a stretch for a mechanic to suggest that using a
landing light bulb without a tit on it might put his career in
jeopardy! 8^)

"Where do you draw the line?" is a point of endless debate....
i.e., what constitutes a true safety of flight item, where any
deviation from the FARs can draw serious consequences vs
what might be considered common sense, and tends to have
little or no consequence on the safety and/or outcome of any
given flight. In the end, it's up to the mechanic who signs his
name on the line (as it should be).

Bela P. Havasreti