My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
an MEI and that he could use me as well.

My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.


Any questions, comments, concerns????


Scott D.

Talk to your insurance Co. and ask if they would insure it while
you use it to train this one individual only as a one time deal.
Then charge the guy the for the additional amount of the insurance,
the fuel used plus an amount extra to cover oil and operating
costs. I would think if you are not doing this for anyone else
(thus you are not a flight school) and you are not making a profit
on it (over and above the operating costs he is paying) you would
not need 100Hr. inspections.

Scott D. wrote:
> My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
> Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
> use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
> multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
> boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
> an MEI and that he could use me as well.
>
> My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
> school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
> increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
> possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
> aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
> additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
> be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
> comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.
>
>
> Any questions, comments, concerns????
>
>
> Scott D.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:

>My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
>school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
>increase the owners costs?


If you do it before you accumulate 100 hours after last annual, you
won't have any problems. Also, since you're not making any money on
it, you may be exempt.

HTH.
z

Scott D. <> writes:

> My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
> Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
> use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
> multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
> boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
> an MEI and that he could use me as well.
>
> My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
> school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
> increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
> possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
> aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
> additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
> be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
> comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.
>
>
> Any questions, comments, concerns????

I don't think you need to worry about 100 hour inspections, since you're
not providing the airplane (your boss is) and the airplane owner isn't
providing the instruction (you are).

-jav

Scott D. wrote:

> My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
> Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
> use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
> multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
> boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
> an MEI and that he could use me as well.
>
> My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
> school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
> increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
> possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
> aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
> additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
> be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
> comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.
>
>
> Any questions, comments, concerns????

I don't know the particulars, but AOPA likely would. If you are a
member, I'd give them a call. If you aren't, I'd consider joining.


Matt

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:

>My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
>Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
>use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
>multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
>boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
>an MEI and that he could use me as well.
>
>My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
>school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
>increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
>possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
>aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
>additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
>be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
>comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.

Your boss can lend his plane to whomever he sees fit, as long as he
does not seek compensation for the hours flown (ie renting).

The next issue is insurance. There are two ways to make sure this
operation is covered.
1. Qualify under the open-pilot clause of the policy. This is
probably something like 1000TT, 250ME, and 50 in Seneca-II.
2. Have your boss add the MEI or the new pilot as a named-insured on
the policy. Unless the MEI/new pilot has similar time as your boss,
expect rates to go up.

-Nathan

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:
>
> >My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
> >school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
> >increase the owners costs?
>
>
> Also, since you're not making any money on
> it, you may be exempt.

I'd be surprised if that was true. If it were, then flight schools
that couldn't make a profit could skip the 100 hr. inspection.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 10 Nov 2004 18:30:16 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

>> Also, since you're not making any money on
>> it, you may be exempt.
>
> I'd be surprised if that was true. If it were, then flight schools
>that couldn't make a profit could skip the 100 hr. inspection.


That's a commercial operation. Flight schools offer their planes for
hire, whether they make a profit on it or not is their problem. This
is an entirely different situation. The plane is not being offered
for hire, but loaned to someone for pursuit of a certificate.

z

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On 10 Nov 2004 18:30:16 -0800, (John Galban)
> wrote:
>
> >> Also, since you're not making any money on
> >> it, you may be exempt.
> >
> > I'd be surprised if that was true. If it were, then flight schools
> >that couldn't make a profit could skip the 100 hr. inspection.
>
>
> That's a commercial operation. Flight schools offer their planes for
> hire, whether they make a profit on it or not is their problem. This
> is an entirely different situation. The plane is not being offered
> for hire, but loaned to someone for pursuit of a certificate.
>
That's the whole point of the question. Money is going to change
hands (I assume the ME student won't get the plane for free) and the
OP is wondering about whether or not his relationship to the owner
will make it appear to be a flight school. To some, the owner
offering his plane and pilot to the student, could have the
appearances of a commercial operation. How will you determine that
they're exempt because they're "not making money on it".

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:31:13 GMT, zatatime > wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:
>
>>My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
>>school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
>>increase the owners costs?
>
>
>If you do it before you accumulate 100 hours after last annual, you
>won't have any problems. Also, since you're not making any money on
>it, you may be exempt.

The FAA doesn't care whether you are making money. They care whether
the aircraft is being rented. IMO, if the owner of the aircraft
receives any reimbursement for the training - it is a rental
operation.

On 11 Nov 2004 11:05:20 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

>zatatime > wrote in message >...
>> On 10 Nov 2004 18:30:16 -0800, (John Galban)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Also, since you're not making any money on
>> >> it, you may be exempt.
>> >
>> > I'd be surprised if that was true. If it were, then flight schools
>> >that couldn't make a profit could skip the 100 hr. inspection.
>>
>>
>> That's a commercial operation. Flight schools offer their planes for
>> hire, whether they make a profit on it or not is their problem. This
>> is an entirely different situation. The plane is not being offered
>> for hire, but loaned to someone for pursuit of a certificate.
>>
> That's the whole point of the question. Money is going to change
>hands (I assume the ME student won't get the plane for free) and the
>OP is wondering about whether or not his relationship to the owner
>will make it appear to be a flight school. To some, the owner
>offering his plane and pilot to the student, could have the
>appearances of a commercial operation. How will you determine that
>they're exempt because they're "not making money on it".

Because they are not renting the aircaft out or presenting it as any
other type of "For hire" operation.

z

Nathan Young > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. <> wrote:


Be very careful on the insurance.

The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
damages it.
What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
as
the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
pilot. In your role,
you should really be named in some way on this insurance.

My understanding. And by the way, read the FAR about providing an
airplane
for instruction. You need 100 hour insp if you *provide* one. You
need to get the job done before 100 hours passes. Sure does not
depend on how much profit
you make. How many hours are you running it past 100 hrs
in a year anyway?

Bill Hale

>
> >My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
> >Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
> >use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
> >multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
> >boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
> >an MEI and that he could use me as well.
> >
> >My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
> >school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
> >increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
> >possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
> >aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
> >additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
> >be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
> >comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.
>
> Your boss can lend his plane to whomever he sees fit, as long as he
> does not seek compensation for the hours flown (ie renting).
>
> The next issue is insurance. There are two ways to make sure this
> operation is covered.
> 1. Qualify under the open-pilot clause of the policy. This is
> probably something like 1000TT, 250ME, and 50 in Seneca-II.
> 2. Have your boss add the MEI or the new pilot as a named-insured on
> the policy. Unless the MEI/new pilot has similar time as your boss,
> expect rates to go up.
>
> -Nathan

Bill Hale > wrote:
: The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
: is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
: damages it.
: What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
: as
: the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
: damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
: pilot. In your role,
: you should really be named in some way on this insurance.

I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
said that only the owner(s) of the aircraft were covered personally. Basically, then,
the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
open pilot clause.

I wonder if I just have a screwy insurance company. Has anyone else asked
about this specific issue?

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
: I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
: you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
: said that only the owner(s) of the aircraft were covered personally. Basically, then,
: the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
: open pilot clause.

My insurance company (Avemco) gives a "waiver of subrogation" to all named
pilots regardless of their ownership status. That means that Avemco will not
sue any named pilots if a claim is paid.

Were I a named pilot on anyone else's insurance I would get a "non-owner"
insurance policy. These are pretty cheap, as far as insurance goes.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

wrote in message >...
> Bill Hale > wrote:
> : The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
> : is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
> : damages it.
> : What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
> : as
> : the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
> : damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
> : pilot. In your role,
> : you should really be named in some way on this insurance.
>
> I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
> you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
----------
If you are NAMED but not an owner, then you are covered for liability. Since
the owner OWNS it, the airplane is still covered. The $$ to fix it
would go the the owner.

The total liability coverage remains the same: If you and the owner both get
sued, there's 1/2 each. That's why they don't like lots of named insureds.

Aaron Coolidge > wrote in message >...
> wrote:

> My insurance company (Avemco) gives a "waiver of subrogation" to all named
> pilots regardless of their ownership status. That means that Avemco will not
> sue any named pilots if a claim is paid.
>
> Were I a named pilot on anyone else's insurance I would get a "non-owner"
> insurance policy. These are pretty cheap, as far as insurance goes.

That's not really necessary because the insurance company is required
to provide legal defense and liability to "named pilots". However open
waranty pilots are a different story and I believe what you are
talking about.

-Robert

wrote in message >...
> Bill Hale > wrote:

> Basically, then,
> the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
> open pilot clause.

An open pilot cannot have "causal" access to the plane. If you have
your own keys for the plane, insurance companies generally will
consider you to either be named or not covered.

-Robert