Club Management Issue

[Geoffrey Barnes]

First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
like it.

One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the
two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
"Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night.
There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday
night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving
the 182 behind.

On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to
help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like
to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled
to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
squared away.

Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well.
The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument
lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book
rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.

There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.

Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
your club or FBO do in this situation?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote:

> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
> like it.

Sounds like you got lucky -- you discovered a serious problem in the way
your club operates and got out of the mess with a relatively small
amount of money involved.

My club has a hard and fast rule which says what individual members are
allowed to do in the way of maintenance: they can add gas and oil, and
air to the tires. Anything else requires authorization from the
maintenance committee. If anything else needs doing, the member is
required to contact the maintenance committee before spending any money.

The last thing you want is individual members going out and doing their
own repairs. There's two issues here; one is to make sure that repairs
are done correctly and by mechanics we trust, the other is to keep a
handle on who is authorized to spend the club's money.

[J]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:11:23 +0000, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?
>

We had a situation like that and the club just eat the mechanic's costs.
The owner receiver no revenue, because the reason was the flight was an
un-airworthy aircraft.

jerry

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Geoffrey Barnes" > said:
>Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
>responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
>pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
>club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
>your club or FBO do in this situation?

Our club has a policy that if you leave a plane somewhere you're
responsible for bringing it back or paying the costs for someone else to
bring it back. When I got weathered in in Ottawa with no instrument
rating, I had to pay the tach time for another club plane to come out with
two instrument rated pilots, one of whom flew the plane I had come out in,
and one to fly back the ferry plane. A very expensive weekend, I can tell
you.

Another time, however, a club member had a mechanical problem in Colorado
on a Sunday. He had three options:
1 - Abandon the plane and fly home commercial
2 - Call out a mechanic at Sunday emergency call out rates
3 - Wait until Monday and have it fixed at normal shop rates.
If he'd chosen the first, he agrees that he would have been responsible
for covering the costs of bringing it back. If he'd chosen option 2, he
feels the club would have covered the cost, and he's probably right about
that. So he chose option 3, and billed the club for the cost of his hotel
room for Sunday night. Now this caused a lot of dissention in the club,
because some of us thought it was his responsibility to cover expenses
caused by delays, since delays are a natural part of flying small aircraft
over long distance, and other people took his side, that the hotel was a
lot less than the amount we would have had to pay to get it fixed on
Sunday, so the club came out ahead. Eventually the club paid his hotel
bill.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
.... industry giant Microsoft Corporation... a company that has become
successful without resorting to software testing...
-- Unknown, rec.humor.funny

[Mike Rapoport]

Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively few!
All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:

The owners are responsible for maitenance, they should pay for the cost of
"failed maitenance". That includes all the related costs. Perhaps they
will learn a lesson about preventative maitenance.

The owners should get their portion of the rental fees for the return
flight.

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
k.net...
> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with
something
> like it.
>
> One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from
the
> two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday
night.
> There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on
Sunday
> night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home,
leaving
> the 182 behind.
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
> in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing
to
> help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would
like
> to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
> one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were
scheduled
> to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> squared away.
>
> Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty
well.
> The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his
instrument
> lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule
book
> rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
> But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
>
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182
amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would
like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

I'm surprised no one has chimed in on "Mark" asking for reimbursement of fuel.
Unless he was flying under part 135, the best he could do is ask for no more
than the passenger's pro-rata share of the fuel, oil, aircraft rental fee (none
since it was his plane) and direct airport expenses for portion of the flight
the passengers flew. Even at that, I think he fails the common purpose clause,
since he wasn't have been flying to that airport anyway. The FAA takes a very
dim view of this type of operation, and would likely not allow ANY reimbursement
to "Mark" in this case. Getting caught by the FAA in what they consider a for
hire operation would cost Mark far more than the $175 fuel bill. Of course, if
this was a part 135 flight, this wouldn't apply but then I think in that case
the billing would have been discussed up front too.

Regarding the maintenance bill and the costs related to the airplane being
stranded, those should be paid by the aircraft owner since maintenance is his
responsibility. He doesn't want to create a climate that encourages renters to
attempt to return in an unairworthy (or marginally airworthy) aircraft to save
added expenses. The remaining expense could go either way, although if the club
or renter pay for the return trip on the airplane, the owner should pay for the
renter's travel expenses for his return. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
> like it.
>
> One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the
> two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night.
> There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday
> night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving
> the 182 behind.
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
> in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to
> help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like
> to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
> one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled
> to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> squared away.
>
> Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well.
> The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument
> lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book
> rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
> But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
>
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Peter R.]

Geoffrey Barnes ) wrote:

> Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.

Hmmm... reads to me like "Mark" is asking for more than his fair share of
the direct flight costs, which would be in violation of FAR part 91
regulations.

Here's how I see it:

> Our A&P charged us $100 for the travel time back and forth.

Owners should pay this fee and thank their lucky stars that an A&P was not
called out of bed on a Sunday night to fix it. Hell, had our FBO's A&Ps
replaced an alternator during normal business hours, it would have easily
been $250 for parts and labor.

> The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted to $70.

Owners.

> Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.

Divide $175 by three (three on board), then have the club pay Mark one
third for fuel.

> And the 182's flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees,
> about $225 of which would normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.

Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued
this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return,
right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time, not
ground time while awaiting repairs?

However, since the club does not have rules about being stranded, the club
should come up with the rental fees, then write a rule about being
stranded.




--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Russell Kent]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Another time, however, a club member had a mechanical problem in Colorado
> on a Sunday. He had three options:
> 1 - Abandon the plane and fly home commercial
> 2 - Call out a mechanic at Sunday emergency call out rates
> 3 - Wait until Monday and have it fixed at normal shop rates.
> If he'd chosen the first, he agrees that he would have been responsible
> for covering the costs of bringing it back. If he'd chosen option 2, he
> feels the club would have covered the cost, and he's probably right about
> that. So he chose option 3, and billed the club for the cost of his hotel
> room for Sunday night. Now this caused a lot of dissention in the club,
> because some of us thought it was his responsibility to cover expenses
> caused by delays, since delays are a natural part of flying small aircraft
> over long distance, and other people took his side, that the hotel was a
> lot less than the amount we would have had to pay to get it fixed on
> Sunday, so the club came out ahead. Eventually the club paid his hotel
> bill.

Then the club did the right thing. The club was on the hook for the costs of
option #2 as soon as the mechanical problem occurred. Anything that the club
member did that reduced that obligation was gravy to the club. IMHO the club
should've picked up his meals, too, to the extent that the total outlay
(Monday's repair costs + hotel + meals) didn't exceed what option #2 would have
cost.

Russell Kent

[John T]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

[Ray Andraka]

At best, only for the trip to the airport. The passengers did not return in the same
airplane. You'd need to divide the $175 by two for the round trip, and then divide
that by 3. Mark pays 4/6ths . However, as I stated, I think the common cause clause
trumps the pro-rata share anyway. Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.

"Peter R." wrote:

> Divide $175 by three (three on board), then have the club pay Mark one
> third for fuel.
>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Russell Kent]

John T wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>
> Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the
airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the
flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey
refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the
argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not
a profitable one). There's little evidence that the FAA would come after
"Mark" if this is a rare occurrence, but the possibility of an
accident/incident and subsequent FAA enforcement action and potential denial of
insurance coverage does cause *some* people to hesitate.

But then Mike Rapoport is assuming that "Mark" doesn't already have a Pt135
certificate...

Russell Kent

[John T]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message

>
> IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
> to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
> presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
> compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
> favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
> offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
> one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued
> this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return,
> right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time,
not
> ground time while awaiting repairs?
>

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent
on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination
until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there.

Mike
MU-2

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>
> Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't
he?
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Russell Kent" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
> > to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
> > presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
> > compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
> > favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
> > offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
> > one).
>
> It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
> can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
> stranded plane.
>

You are not doing "favors" when you charge for it (even if it is
unprofitable)

> Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
> the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
> the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.


This flight absolutely does not fall under Part 91.

Mike
MU-2

> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[Peter R.]

Mike Rapoport ) wrote:

> Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent
> on the return flight?

That is what I was saying. However, upon reflection, I would like to
retract that statement. :)

> It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> > It is not his fault that the airplane broke.
>
> Agreed.

As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault when
the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But it's still
the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so that other people
can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club members to come get the
plane.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[John T]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net
>
> No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
> destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
> stranded there.

OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> [...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
> take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that
airport?

No, he's not saying that.

> I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're
taking
> it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that
even
> the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
> transportation to/from stranded planes.

No problem, because they don't say that.

The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even pro-rata
sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of purpose".

If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his time and
money however he likes.

Pete

[John T]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net
>
> Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
> rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
> broke.


Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
their fault the plane broke. :)

While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This does
not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.

Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the club
covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in charging
him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for the
plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Peter Duniho]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > > It is not his fault that the airplane broke.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
when
> the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But it's still
> the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so that other
people
> can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club members to come get
the
> plane.

Actually, policies vary according to FBO and club. The club I did the most
renting from had a very explicit policy that weather-related delays or
cancellations would not incur additional fees (such as overnight tie-down,
daily minimums, etc.) Just as it's in the FBO's or club's interest to not
encourage a pilot to fly an unairworthy airplane, it is in their interest to
not encourage a pilot to fly in poor weather.

Now, it's true that if the pilot just left the plane there and took
alternative transportation home, leaving the plane for someone else to pick
up, the pilot would have to pay for those costs. But that's a different
situation from an unairworthy airplane. The FBO or club don't warrant the
weather and weather-related delays are a normal part of all flying, but they
do warrant the airworthiness of the airplane.

A renter should not be expected to sit around and wait for an airplane to be
repaired just so that the FBO or club who warranted the airworthiness of the
airplane in the first place can avoid additional expenses retrieving the
airplane. If the renter is willing to do so, they should expect their
expenses to be covered (hotel, meals, cab fare, etc.) by the owner of the
airplane, up to whatever the owner of the airplane would have spent anyway
(whether by paying for overtime service, or sending someone else to get the
airplane).

Maintenance and airworthiness *ought* to be the number one priority for any
FBO or club. Above all else, they should ensure that renters are not
expected to help cover their costs when something breaks. After all, how do
they establish and maintain trust with their customers otherwise? I
certainly wouldn't rent an airplane from an operation where I ran the risk
of having to pay for their errors.

Pete

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
> pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
> purpose".


That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs. Where else should I be looking? Is there a legal
counsel ruling on this subject I should read?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
> it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
> the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
> transportation to/from stranded planes.

They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That
section
> says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
> airport and rental costs.

The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and 61.113
doesn't apply.

Pete

[John T]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

>
> They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.


Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Realizing we're talking about the FAA, that still doesn't pass the "common
sense" rule. :) I see this as no different than offering to pay a friend
the cost (or, in this case, half the cost) of driving me to the plane
instead of flying.

The FAA is drawing a distinction between private pilots and pilots for hire,
but accepting pro rata share of flight costs to fly a fellow pilot to his
stranded plane does not seem to me to be a commercial exercise in and of
itself.

However, I remain open to the idea that my interpretation of the reg is
incorrect. Can you point me to another interpretation or legal ruling that
demonstrates that Mark cannot accept even pro rata payment for the outbound
leg of this flight?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
> private pilot may operate for hire.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

I read that as "privileges and limitations of a private pilot" - not "when a
private pilot may accept money". :)

Again, I'm open to the idea that I'm looking in the wrong place, but this is
the only section I know of that describes what a private pilot may and may
not do with his certificate.
> If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
> 61.113 doesn't apply.


I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dude]

It would be fair in my view to charge him the hours for the return trip only
if you deducted the cost of his other transportation home.

Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for diddly
unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.

You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires, etc. and
you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually caused by loose
nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a customer ought to expect
from a vendor.





"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net
> >
> > Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
> > rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
> > broke.
>
>
> Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
> their fault the plane broke. :)
>
> While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
> have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
> Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
> lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This
does
> not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
> around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
> airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.
>
> Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
> retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the
club
> covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
> unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in
charging
> him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for
the
> plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[John Galban]

Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
> Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
> other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
> then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.
>

I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

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

[Ray Andraka]

The OP stated "On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
we'll call 'Mark'". I recall reading recently where the FAA considered a favor as
compensation. Maybe it was AOPA's pilot counsel column or Avweb. In any event, the
wording of this statement shows a clear benefit to Mark.

John Galban wrote:

> Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
> would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
> for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
> purpose is required.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[John T]

"Dude" > wrote in message

>
> Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for
> diddly unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.
>
> You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires,
> etc. and you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually
> caused by loose nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a
> customer ought to expect from a vendor.


If the relationship between the club and the pilot is one of vendor and
customer, then I generally agree with you. However, the equation may change
depending on the finances of the club (IOW, how expenses are handled) and
the membership agreement.

In my current club, each member owns an equal share of the planes. In my
last "club", I was nothing more than a privileged renter. The difference
between the two relationships highlights the differences in perspective than
can be applied to the OP's question. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dave Butler]

Dude wrote:
> It would be fair in my view to charge him the hours for the return trip only
> if you deducted the cost of his other transportation home.
>
> Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for diddly
> unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.
>
> You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires, etc. and
> you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually caused by loose
> nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a customer ought to expect
> from a vendor.

Bingo! I was hoping someone would say that. I've owned an aircraft that was
leased to a flying club, and that would have been my reaction. I wouldn't do it
as a matter of written policy, but in a case like this where there is a dispute,
I would have stepped in and offered to cover all the costs (while hoping that
some of the other parties would say "awww, that's OK"), and considered it just
good customer relations... then I would have talked to the club about getting
the policy nailed down. This is way too little money to get upset about measured
against the scale of aircraft ownership expenses.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[John T]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om
>
> I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
> "commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
> compensation) changes hands.


Where can I read these cases?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Robert M. Gary]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message >...
> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
> like it.
>
> One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the
> two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night.
> There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday
> night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving
> the 182 behind.
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
> in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to
> help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like
> to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
> one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled
> to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> squared away.
>
> Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well.
> The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument
> lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book
> rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
> But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
>
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?

First of all the instrument student is 100% responsible for the 182
ride back. He got his instruction. What type of cheap tight wad is he
thinking he could get free flight instruction time just because the
plane was somewhere else.


The real question is, who manages the maintenance? I've been in clubs
where its the club and I've been in clubs where its the owner. If the
club manages the maintenance than the extra costs are probably all on
the club.
If the owner manages the maint. then someone should have called the
owner and asked them if they wanted to fly someone out there. This
could have been done w/o flying (i.e. driving). The airplane owner
really should have been consulted and given the choice.

Basically, it sounds like no one was managing the operation. At each
step someone should have been saying, "Do we need to pay this". "Do we
need to fly an A&P out there or use a local A&P'. "Do we need to fly
anyone out there or just send a CFI in a pickup to go get the plane".
Since no one was in charge, you got the mess you would expect.

[Robert M. Gary]

"John T" > wrote in message m>...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>
> Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter R. > wrote in message >...
> Geoffrey Barnes ) wrote:
>
> > Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> > to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.
>
> Hmmm... reads to me like "Mark" is asking for more than his fair share of
> the direct flight costs, which would be in violation of FAR part 91
> regulations.
>
> Here's how I see it:
>
> > Our A&P charged us $100 for the travel time back and forth.
>
> Owners should pay this fee and thank their lucky stars that an A&P was not
> called out of bed on a Sunday night to fix it. Hell, had our FBO's A&Ps
> replaced an alternator during normal business hours, it would have easily
> been $250 for parts and labor.
>
> > The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted to $70.
>
> Owners.

Don't forget there is the cost of the A&P's hourly rate to ride in the
plane out there. If the owners were not asked about this first, the
club should pay. The owners could have elected to use a local A&P who
didn't need transport. It was a luxery of the club to quickly send out
their own A&P. The owners may have said, "Let it sit for a week until
old Bill (who lives out there) gets a chance to look at it".

>
> > Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> > to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.
>
> Divide $175 by three (three on board), then have the club pay Mark one
> third for fuel.
>
> > And the 182's flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees,
> > about $225 of which would normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued
> this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return,
> right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time, not
> ground time while awaiting repairs?

Remember, the student who flew it back got his flight instruction. Why
would that student expect to have free airplane time based on someone
else's straits? I would agree with you if it was just a CFI sent out
there, but a club member got to enjoy the airplane.


>
> However, since the club does not have rules about being stranded, the club
> should come up with the rental fees, then write a rule about being
> stranded.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[RevDMV]

Having had an aircraft on leaseback, and reading the other replys here
is what I would expect:

The 182 owners should pony up for all the repair bills including the
A&P travel time. It's not very much and they are getting off easy.

The rental income is just that, handle it just like and other normal
rental.

Mark is on slippery ground and at best should get only a small amount
if any money back.

The way it should have happened is another on of the clubs aircraft
should have been used to fly everyone out. Then the club could either
write that time off, or charge some basic cost(fuel/oil/etc) back to
the 182's owners as part of the maintenance bill. This would/should be
part of the club bylaws.


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message >...
> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
> like it.
>
> One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the
> two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night.
> There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday
> night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving
> the 182 behind.
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
> in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to
> help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like
> to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
> one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled
> to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> squared away.
>
> Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well.
> The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument
> lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book
> rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
> But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
>
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[[email protected]]

There is a difference between "holding out" for business and simply
doing a favor. I think you guys are taking this all a little too
seriously---but then again, the issue is confused enough with regulatory
nonsense that perhaps it should be taken this seriously.

I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
admissible in court if there is ever a problem.

As for commonality of purpose, landing practice always ranks pretty high
with me, particularly at airports I don't fly to very often. In fact,
many of my flights are for the specific purpose of practicing landings.
Even a mediocre burger joint could serve my purpose for deciding where
to land; my taste is not under the FAA's purview (thankfully for both
them and me).



Robert M. Gary wrote:
> "John T" > wrote in message m>...
>
>>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>>>"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>>
>>Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?
>
>
> Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
> able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
> just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
> if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.
>
> -Robert

[Todd Pattist]

"John T" > wrote:

>> I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
>> "commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
>> compensation) changes hands.
>
>
>Where can I read these cases?

Search here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

Here are two on this subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4306.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

Also, you might look at:

Administrator v. Reimer , 3 NTSB 2306 (1980),





Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> > If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
> > 61.113 doesn't apply.
>
> I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air. :)

Are you being dense on purpose?

Read 61.113(a). The only thing it mentions is the question of "carrying
passengers or property for compensation or hire". The remainder of the
regulation are exceptions to (a), labeled (b) through (g). The only thing
61.113 talks about is whether Mark can take money for a flight. If he
doesn't take money for the flight, there's nothing in 61.113 that concerns
him.

FURTHERMORE: certainly nothing in 61.113 discusses whether or not he is
allowed to fly someone, without paying, even if that someone was the one
that proposed the flight.

Your response is like saying that, since 91.1 says Part 91"prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft", 91.173 is applicable every time a
pilot flies, even on a VFR flight.

I suppose technically it could be considered true, if you want to twist the
semantics, but no rationally thinking person would use the word "apply" that
way. Only some troll looking for an argument rather than the truth would.

Are you a troll?

When you find the regulation in the FARs that says Mark can't someone to
where they want to go at their request, then come back and we can talk about
it. Until then, your insistence on questioning whether they can is just
plain silly. Certainly there's nothing in the regulation you quote --
61.113 -- that addresses this question.

Pete

[Dan Truesdell]

John T wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>
>
> Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?
>
>
Not likely. IIRC, there was an article recently in one of the aviation
pubs (AOPA Pilot, I think)
where a pilot flew a doctor and nurse to a crash site for no pay, and
wound up getting written up
by the FAA. Their view was that, even though the pilot didn't charge
anything for the flight, the doctor and nurse WERE being paid, and
therefore, it was deemed a commercial/135 operation.

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[John T]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om
>
> Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
> able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
> just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
> if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

Who asked whom for the flight? If "Mark" advertises or suggests that he'd
fly them for a fee, then that's clearly a commercial operation. If,
however, "Paul" asks Mark to fly him out to pick up his plane and Paul chips
in half the cost of the one-way trip, I don't see that as a commercial
operation and I've not seen anything yet that convinces me it's a violation
of 14CFR91. If Paul paid Mark for half the cost of both legs of Mark's
flight, then I'd agree that Mark isn't paying his pro rata share and is in
violation. (Without knowing what plane was used and the distances involved,
I have no way of knowing whether $175 is a reasonable figure for a pro rata
share.)

If you know of something concrete that contradicts my understanding, please
let me know where I can read it. I'm really not trying to be obstinate
here, but I keep seeing people reference what is essentially the word of
somebody's interpretation of what they heard a FSDO or legal counsel may
have ruled. :)

I think everybody agrees that Mark would not be in volation of any FAR's if
he "donated" his flight time to take the crew out to retrieve Paul's plane.
The only question is whether he can accept *any* money for the flight. My
assertion is that he can accept payment as long as it does not exceed the
cost of the outbound leg minus his pro rata share. In other words, Mark
would pay no less than an equal share of the outbound leg and all of the
inbound leg costs.

I don't think it's the FAA's intent to force all pilots of stranded planes
to:
a) hire a charter flight; or
b) fly commercial; or
c) drive; or
d) take any transportation not operated by a private pilot
to get their plane.

However, since we *are* talking about the FAA, I could be wrong. :) So, if
you know of links with documentation to demonstrate my error in
understanding, please let me know.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dan Truesdell]

John T wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net
>
>>No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
>>destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
>>stranded there.
>
>
> OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
> neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
> for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
> take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?
>
> In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
> didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
> Is he still in violation of Part 91?
>
> I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
> it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
> the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
> transportation to/from stranded planes.
>

The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Judah]

Except that the owner IS responsible for airplane maintenance.

OTOH, the owner is generally not responsible for checking the weather
before flight.


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in
k.net:

>> > It is not his fault that the airplane broke.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
> when the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But
> it's still the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so
> that other people can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club
> members to come get the plane.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
> for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
> Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

That's correct. He has to be going there anyway.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Judah]

I'll add to that another point, which may largely depend on the
club/school...

At the school where I used to rent from before I got into the flight club
that I am in now, if someone got stuck for weather, they would not force
you to try to get the plane back - especially if you called to let them
know ahead of time that you were anticipating the possibility of weather
delays. If someone else was scheduled on the plane after you, they would
try to find a way to make alternate arrangements so that your delay would
not impact anyone else.

However, if you decided that you could not wait it out, and wanted to
have someone come "save" you, then it was your choice, and you were
responsible for the expenses associated with doing that (ie, the cost of
two instrument rated CFIs to fly out and get you home, as well as the
rental time on both planes round trip).

They were also as accomodating as could be, though. For example, I once
got almost all the way home when the weather started closing in, and my
airport became IFR. I landed at the nearest airport I could get to (about
20 miles away), and called up and told them about my situation. I waited
most of the day, and decided it wasn't getting better quick. One of the
school instructors was already planning to take an IFR student shooting
approaches at the airport where I got stuck. So a second instructors
"hitched" a ride with him, and they dropped him off so he could save me.
As a result, they didn't charge me for any of the first CFI's time, or
the other plane's time.

Their policy was overshadowed by the feeling that no one should be
pressured into flying in poor weather. If someone can't wait for better
weather, then it is HIS decision to get "saved", and he should bear the
cost. But if you start penalizing people for getting delayed by weather,
I think you are inviting people to take risks and make bad decisions.


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in
k.net:

>> > It is not his fault that the airplane broke.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
> when the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But
> it's still the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so
> that other people can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club
> members to come get the plane.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[Peter Clark]

On 25 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

>Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
>> Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
>> other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
>> then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.
>>
>
> I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
>"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
>compensation) changes hands. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
>part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
>the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
>cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
>cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.
>
> Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
>would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
>for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
>purpose is required.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>>
>> I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air. :)
>
> Are you being dense on purpose?
>
> Read 61.113(a). The only thing it mentions is the question of
> "carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire". The
> remainder of the regulation are exceptions to (a), labeled (b)
> through (g). The only thing
> 61.113 talks about is whether Mark can take money for a flight. If he
> doesn't take money for the flight, there's nothing in 61.113 that
> concerns him.

It concerns him on every flight in the sense that he has to abide by the
rule. My point is that all the rules for a given certificate apply
regardless of the flight, but I'll cede the point that I was unclear. My
apologies for the misunderstanding.

> FURTHERMORE: certainly nothing in 61.113 discusses whether or not he
> is allowed to fly someone, without paying, even if that someone was
> the one that proposed the flight.

Nor is it forbidden. The question remains one of: Is a given activity
allowed unless explicitly forbidden by the FAR's?

> When you find the regulation in the FARs that says Mark can't someone
> to where they want to go at their request, then come back and we can
> talk about it. Until then, your insistence on questioning whether
> they can is just plain silly. Certainly there's nothing in the
> regulation you quote --
> 61.113 -- that addresses this question.

Dude, take a breath. I'm not trolling. I honestly don't understand from
where you're getting that Mark can accept no form of payment for the flight
in the OP's scenario. Without knowing the specifics of the OP's "cashing in
some favors", I'll assume that Mark was simply asked to fly the replacement
pilot to the C182. (I'm in no position to judge whether $175 is a
reasonable payment for Mark to accept. It sounds high to me, but I don't
know the aircraft type or distance involved.) Assuming 3 occupants on the
outbound leg, I'd expect that Mark would be entitled to no more than 2/3 the
cost of the outbound leg, but I don't see where Mark is forbidden to accept
a request to fly the replacement pilot to the plane.

My understanding is that 61.113 is the only place the FAR's define the
limitations of private pilot's privileges (with the main distinction between
a private and commercial pilot being the ability to charge for services) and
it defines when a private pilot may accept money for a flight. Paragraph
(a) says a private pilot may not offer services for compensation ("holding
out" or advertising services). As you aptly pointed out, Paragraph (c)
offers the ability to accept payment from passengers. It says that a
private pilot must pay no less than his pro rata share for a flight with
passengers. Your "commonality of purpose" argument is addressed in
61.113(b)(1) but that applies to flights incidental to the pilot's
employment - not helping a fellow pilot retrieve his plane.

It's not my intent to delve into semantics. If that's *really* where you
want to go, have fun without me. However, if you have some solid
information to demonstrate the error of my understanding (which I've
admitted several times may be in error), please post some links. Do you
know of case law or NTSB rulings backing your position?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> Where can I read these cases?

Back issues of AOPA Pilot. John Yodice's column. Available online to members.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[John T]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message

>
> The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
> Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
> "Mark" didn't receive a dime.


OK, I'm willing to buy that.

For the sake of discussion, would Mark be able to accept any payment if he
were ferrying only the replacement crew to retrieve the plane?

Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you ask
me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
much of that can I legally accept?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com
>
> I honestly don't understand
> from where you're getting that Mark can accept no form of payment for
> the flight in the OP's scenario.

I can accept that having a mechanic on board getting paid for his time spent
in the plane would make it a commercial flight. My arguments have been made
from the point of view that the mechanic was not in the plane (oversight on
my part).

I'm still curious though: Can I fly a pilot to his stranded plane at his
request and accept his offer of half the cost of the outbound leg? I don't
see where the FAR's prohibit this.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message

>
> Not likely. IIRC, there was an article recently in one of the
> aviation pubs (AOPA Pilot, I think)
> where a pilot flew a doctor and nurse to a crash site for no pay, and
> wound up getting written up
> by the FAA. Their view was that, even though the pilot didn't charge
> anything for the flight, the doctor and nurse WERE being paid, and
> therefore, it was deemed a commercial/135 operation.


OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "John T" > wrote in message
> ws.com...
>> [...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
>> take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that
> airport?
>
> No, he's not saying that.
>
>> I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're
> taking
>> it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe
>> that
> even
>> the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
>> transportation to/from stranded planes.
>
> No problem, because they don't say that.
>
> The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
> pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
> purpose".
>
> If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his
> time and money however he likes.
>
> Pete
>
>

I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

IMHO (from a "not even a student pilot yet") the regs were written in
such a way to absolutely regulate any commercial activity and close any
and all potential loopholes that someone could come up with. In doing
so, these regs shoot themselves in the foot by keeping someone from
"donating" there time, while not wanting to "donate" their money in the
form of fuel, oil, etc.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license. Ridiculous.... When a regulation is written like this it
degrades the legitimacy of all the other regs written by the same
agency... I expect there are quite a few FAA regs that fit in this
category...


--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
> and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

It still boils down to the fact that you can only share the expenses of a flight
that the group is making as an entity. The Feds have ruled that you cannot accept
compensation for transporting passengers unless you were going there anyway and
they're just along for the ride. You also can't advertise and take payment, and
that includes saying something to your friends like "Hey guys, I'm flying up to
Boston Saturday. Anybody wanna go along?" Half the people at Oshkosh probably
violate that one. It also includes offering to pilot a twin for free if you need
more twin time for a rating.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ws.com
> >
>
> I'm still curious though: Can I fly a pilot to his stranded plane at his
> request and accept his offer of half the cost of the outbound leg? I
don't
> see where the FAR's prohibit this.
>
> --
> John T

No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its just one
of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

The renter was rented a defective airplane. It is either the owner's or the
club's responsibility to ensure that the plane works.

Mike
MU-2


"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net
> >
> > Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
> > rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
> > broke.
>
>
> Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
> their fault the plane broke. :)
>
> While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
> have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
> Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
> lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This
does
> not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
> around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
> airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.
>
> Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
> retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the
club
> covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
> unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in
charging
> him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for
the
> plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >
> Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you
ask
> me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
> much of that can I legally accept?
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

I could offer you any amount that I want but you cannot legally accept
anything.

However, should this actually happen, I will give you cash and you can count
on me not to turn you over to the FAA.

Mike
MU-2

[Dan Truesdell]

John T wrote:
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
>
>
>>The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
>>Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
>>"Mark" didn't receive a dime.
>
>
>
> OK, I'm willing to buy that.
>
> For the sake of discussion, would Mark be able to accept any payment if he
> were ferrying only the replacement crew to retrieve the plane?
>
> Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you ask
> me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
> much of that can I legally accept?
>

I would presume that ferrying a plane for no cost would not fall under a
"commercial" operation. Since you would not be in the plane, there is
no possibility of sharing the cost.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its just
one
> of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.

The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires that
if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation, not
even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
> plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
> know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
> it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
> unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

By that logic, why not just accept another $100 cash. After all, "no ones
[sic] to know" where the $100 came from, right?

Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
irrelevant. The FAA has been clear that they will interpret and enforce the
no-compensation rules for private pilots, and that anything that could be
even remotely construed as a "for hire" situation will be.

The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
be violated by the FAA. If you accept compensation, even if it's just
pro-rata sharing, you had better make sure that you have a commonality of
purpose. Otherwise, should the FAA get wind of your flight, they will come
after you.

> It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
> while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
> license.

It's true. The FAA regulations are much stricter than motor vehicle rules,
and they are much more strictly enforced. You'll notice that pretty much
everything about aviation is much more strictly regulated than it is in
motor vehicles. So what? That doesn't change how things are in aviation,
nor does it mean that you can draw analogies between aviation and motor
vehicle law. The two are very different. Don't confuse them.

As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
problem with it. It's simply one of many rules that the FAA has set out for
us. If you want to use an airplane to do a friend a favor, then you do so
at your own expense. It's simple to understand. If you know someone that
needs an airplane, and you're not willing to foot the bill, let them pay a
commercial pilot working for an appropriate Part 135 operator handle the
job.

Pete

[John T]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
k.net
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his,
> who we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the
> remote airport in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is
> not a member of the flying club, but is friendly with several of our
> members and was willing to help us out. Once all of this was
> arranged, Paul was asked if he would like to go along on the trip,
> but he said he was unable to do so. So instead, one of our club CFIs
> and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled to do some
> instrument training that evening in a different aircraft -- agreed to
> go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things squared
> away.


OK, after helpful tips from George Patterson and Todd Pattist, I have come
to the conclusion that my understanding of 61.113 was indeed wrong.
(Sidebar: I don't have any of my old FAR/AIMs. Did 61.118 change to 61.113
in a re-write of 14CFR?)

For those with AOPA membership (thanks to George's tip):
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1995/pc9503.html

In the 2004 article, the pilot was found to have been compensated due to the
"greasing of the wheels" for possible future work even though the pilot was
not paid directly for the 4 flights.

The 1995 article references a pilot flying skydivers to altitude. The pilot
argued that he wasn't operating for a profit, but the Board rejected his
arguments since the skydivers paid a share of the flight costs purely to
achieve altitude for jumps.

These articles referred to NTSB cases posted by Todd. Based on Todd's
helpful links, I found a couple other interesting findings including:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
Pilot flew a mechanic and owner to repair a helicopter. Pilot accepted no
money (not even shared expenses) but was charged with violating 61.118 (now
61.113??). The NTSB upheld the pilot's appeal and the pilot was not
sanctioned because he not only used his own aircraft at his own expense, but
he did so without the intent to generate favor or goodwill with the
passengers.

So, the FAR still doesn't reflect the "common purpose" phrase implemented as
law by the NTSB in 1994.

And there's the rub. There is *case law* implementing the "common purpose"
phrase, but no regulation. This begs the question: How are pilots supposed
to know and follow the rules when the rules aren't published? The FAA/NTSB
may argue that case law is published (after all, I found it online), but
common sense suggests that 14CFR should be the single source for these
rules. If case law changes the meaning of a given regulation, then the
regulation should be changed. That's just my opinion and I know all about
the "everybody has one" rule. :)

The "common purpose" definition appears to hinge on whether the passenger's
purpose is to move from Point A to Point B (say, home airport to stranded
airplane).

As such, this new understanding I have of this case law implies that "Mark"
is really setting himself up for enforcement action by the FAA. His *only*
hope of avoiding sanction (assuming the local FSDO investigates), is to
accept absolutely no payment for this flight - and even that isn't going to
assure him of no action taken against him (see the "favor and goodwill"
phrases used by the NTSB and relate that to "cashed in some favors" in the
OP).

For pilots finding themselves in this situation (needing to retrieve a plane
from another location due to maintenance, weahter, etc.), either hire an air
taxi/charter service or hitch a ride from a pilot already going to your
destination. Pilots providing the ride should either have prior plans to go
to the destination airport or accept absolutely no form of compensation (no
shared expenses, favor or goodwill).

It still sounds asinine to me, but the FAA/NTSB appear to be very forcefully
drawing the line between air charter and non-charter flying. Accepting a
fellow pilot's request for help is quite a different animal from, say,
flying an acquaintance to visit family. Again, just my opinion.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires
> that if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any
> compensation, not even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating
> expenses.

To add to the "jerk-ness" factor, if you have any relationship with the
passenger such that the flight could be construed as to be generating "favor
or goodwill", you could still be held in violation even if no cash changed
hands. (Based on NTSB rulings, not FAR's.)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

You are forgetting that if it can be construed that the pilot may garner
favor from the passenger then the flight is commercial. If I, a securties
analyst, offer a ride to somenone (to see his dying spouse) who works for a
company in a sector that I follow and I pay all the expenses, it is
prohibited under the regs. Even if I was previously planning to practice
landings at different airports, it is still a prohibited flight if I take
this passenger. The government is requiring me to be a jerk

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its just
> one
> > of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.
>
> The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires that
> if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation,
not
> even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Dude]

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine on a
trip related to business so long as the business is not transporting that
person to the destination. Now you are saying that because I want him to
buy something from me I can't do it?

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? If you are a
politician, you can't take anyone flying because you may one day be seeking
their vote or contribution?

I can't fly anyone from my company with me because I am obviously currying
favor there.

How about a doctor flying a patient for treatment into the big city to see a
specialist?

I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> You are forgetting that if it can be construed that the pilot may garner
> favor from the passenger then the flight is commercial. If I, a securties
> analyst, offer a ride to somenone (to see his dying spouse) who works for
a
> company in a sector that I follow and I pay all the expenses, it is
> prohibited under the regs. Even if I was previously planning to practice
> landings at different airports, it is still a prohibited flight if I take
> this passenger. The government is requiring me to be a jerk
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its
just
> > one
> > > of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.
> >
> > The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires
that
> > if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation,
> not
> > even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[Dude]

> >
> > The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
> > Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
> > "Mark" didn't receive a dime.
>
>
> OK, I'm willing to buy that.
>

I am not. Is there a specific rule that says that because someone on the
plane is getting paid to go somewhere that it is now a 135 operation?

Let's see. You pay your chauffer for coming with you on your Jet so he can
drive you around when you get there. Now, your privately owned jet has a
pilot, co pilot and chauffer on board and they are all getting paid to go.
Now its 135?

[John T]

"Dude" > wrote in message

> I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
> "commonality of purpose" clause is?

That's the very part I was having a hard time with. We're talking about the
US only, but the NTSB ruled (see my post just off the root of this thread)
in a case involving a pair of TV reporters, an insrument student and his
instructor. The student made arrangements with the TV studio to fly the
reporters to another location unbeknownst to the instructor. The reporters
were not to return with the student/instructor. The NTSB ruled that while
the student may have been in the plane to receive instruction, the
passengers were in the plane purely for transportation to Point B.
Therefore, the student was in violation of Part 135 and 61.118 and the
instructor was also in violation of Part 135.

> I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine
> on a trip related to business so long as the business is not
> transporting that person to the destination. Now you are saying that
> because I want him to buy something from me I can't do it?

If he's buying from you, he's a customer and not an employee.

> Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? ...
> I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.

No doubt. My assertion throughout this thread is that it's patently
ridiculous for the FAA to forbid me to help a fellow pilot retrieve his
plane and have said pilot pay what would amount to 1/4 the cost of the
roundtrip flight. However, based on FAA and NTSB rulings, I cannot accept
any money from him nor can I even take him at all if I'm in a position to
gain "favor or goodwill" from him.

Of course, if we take that last definition to its extreme, I can't even take
friends on local fun flights that I would still be taking without them
because I would be generating "favor and goodwill" with them. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

<lots of stuff snipped>

> Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
> irrelevant.


THAT kind of thinking will lead to ANY opinion you have, or I have, of any
law or regulation being irrelevant. An unjust, unfair, and plain STUPID
law/regulation that defies all common sense deserves to be defied. Paying
for a buddie's fuel for him to take you somewhere is HARDLY a crime....

Yes, most will cower and obey, lest they loss their right to fly, and
perhaps when the time comes, I may as well... but that doesn't make it
right, and it CERTAINLY doesn't make it irrelevant.


--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dude]

Note - Actual discussion is after the rant. You can avoid the rant by
skipping down to the part after the large "Argh".


-------
Oh boy if you didn't step right onto two of my favorite, all time, land
mines - so called "case law" and administrative regulations with the power
of law.

Case Law in any other profession would be held up to be a monopolistic
practice by a conspiracy of thieves calling their gang by the ominous name -
"The Bar".

Seriously, couldn't the legislative branch get off its lazy arse and rewrite
the laws so that they either clearly state what the case law reflects, or in
such a way as to negate the case law in instances of judicial activism or
wrong headedness? Isn't this the very heart of their job? Legislature has
law in its root for Pete's sake.

Instead we now have the legilature throwing out minimum sentencing
guidelines and other crazy crap because they can't manage to get a
reasonably competent judicial branch that is willing to do its job.

As for Adminstrative Law - if you hired someone to take care of your most
precious belongings, and they delegated that responsibility to someone you
never heard of and didn't even pay much attention to what they were doing,
you would fire, if not shoot them. Unless they are a legislator, in which
case, you reelect them!

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!

That's two rants in one night, sorry
---------

Anyway, you have a reasonably good way to look at this, and you are probably
right. If I were Mark, I would avoid compensation as well. In any case, it
would appear that most of the examples where people got nailed they made the
mistake of opening their big mouths or having obvious motives.

So lets say its too late, that he did ask for pro rata gas.

Here is what I say Mark should do (if his lawyer agrees). He should claim
that it was his desire to help his friends get the plane back. That may be
a weak excuse for commonality of purpose, but only if he had another
purpose. Now, let the FAA prove that he was doing it build hours. If its
his plane, he likely doesn't need the hours, so they are on shakey ground
themselves. If he states that it was his purpose to retrieve the plane,
then the FAA is in the position of PROVING that he had an alterior motive.
LET THEM PROVE IT!

The guy with the film crew was obviously trying to lessen the cost of his
lesson.

The guy with the ambulance got off in the end because his only purpose was
to help achieve the same mission that the mechanic and pilot were working
on. The fact that they were paid for their participation would be
incidental business.

The guy in the party example was transporting people who had paid to be
somewhere, so they were paying passengers, and thats gotta be a violation.

The guy with the lease dodge was too smart for his own good. He was
obviously doing what the laws were written to regulate in the first place.

To me, the closest case is the ambulance one, but that guy took no money, so
you need to determine how important the money was in the decision to grant
the appeal.




"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> k.net
> >
> > On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his,
> > who we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the
> > remote airport in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is
> > not a member of the flying club, but is friendly with several of our
> > members and was willing to help us out. Once all of this was
> > arranged, Paul was asked if he would like to go along on the trip,
> > but he said he was unable to do so. So instead, one of our club CFIs
> > and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled to do some
> > instrument training that evening in a different aircraft -- agreed to
> > go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things squared
> > away.
>
>
> OK, after helpful tips from George Patterson and Todd Pattist, I have come
> to the conclusion that my understanding of 61.113 was indeed wrong.
> (Sidebar: I don't have any of my old FAR/AIMs. Did 61.118 change to
61.113
> in a re-write of 14CFR?)
>
> For those with AOPA membership (thanks to George's tip):
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1995/pc9503.html
>
> In the 2004 article, the pilot was found to have been compensated due to
the
> "greasing of the wheels" for possible future work even though the pilot
was
> not paid directly for the 4 flights.
>
> The 1995 article references a pilot flying skydivers to altitude. The
pilot
> argued that he wasn't operating for a profit, but the Board rejected his
> arguments since the skydivers paid a share of the flight costs purely to
> achieve altitude for jumps.
>
> These articles referred to NTSB cases posted by Todd. Based on Todd's
> helpful links, I found a couple other interesting findings including:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
> Pilot flew a mechanic and owner to repair a helicopter. Pilot accepted no
> money (not even shared expenses) but was charged with violating 61.118
(now
> 61.113??). The NTSB upheld the pilot's appeal and the pilot was not
> sanctioned because he not only used his own aircraft at his own expense,
but
> he did so without the intent to generate favor or goodwill with the
> passengers.
>
> So, the FAR still doesn't reflect the "common purpose" phrase implemented
as
> law by the NTSB in 1994.
>
> And there's the rub. There is *case law* implementing the "common
purpose"
> phrase, but no regulation. This begs the question: How are pilots
supposed
> to know and follow the rules when the rules aren't published? The
FAA/NTSB
> may argue that case law is published (after all, I found it online), but
> common sense suggests that 14CFR should be the single source for these
> rules. If case law changes the meaning of a given regulation, then the
> regulation should be changed. That's just my opinion and I know all about
> the "everybody has one" rule. :)
>
> The "common purpose" definition appears to hinge on whether the
passenger's
> purpose is to move from Point A to Point B (say, home airport to stranded
> airplane).
>
> As such, this new understanding I have of this case law implies that
"Mark"
> is really setting himself up for enforcement action by the FAA. His
*only*
> hope of avoiding sanction (assuming the local FSDO investigates), is to
> accept absolutely no payment for this flight - and even that isn't going
to
> assure him of no action taken against him (see the "favor and goodwill"
> phrases used by the NTSB and relate that to "cashed in some favors" in the
> OP).
>
> For pilots finding themselves in this situation (needing to retrieve a
plane
> from another location due to maintenance, weahter, etc.), either hire an
air
> taxi/charter service or hitch a ride from a pilot already going to your
> destination. Pilots providing the ride should either have prior plans to
go
> to the destination airport or accept absolutely no form of compensation
(no
> shared expenses, favor or goodwill).
>
> It still sounds asinine to me, but the FAA/NTSB appear to be very
forcefully
> drawing the line between air charter and non-charter flying. Accepting a
> fellow pilot's request for help is quite a different animal from, say,
> flying an acquaintance to visit family. Again, just my opinion.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> > Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
> > irrelevant.
>
> THAT kind of thinking will lead to ANY opinion you have, or I have, of any
> law or regulation being irrelevant.

You need to stay in context. My point is that, for the purpose of
understanding how the rules are interpreted and enforced (which is the point
here), what you think of the rules makes no difference.

Don't like the rules? Sure, it makes sense to work to change them. But
until you DO change them, you still need to understand how they are
currently interpreted and enforced. You ignore them at your own peril, and
no amount of opinionating regarding the rules will save you.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Excellent research and reporting by John T. One question:

> Pilots providing the ride should either have prior plans to go
> to the destination airport or accept absolutely no form of compensation (no
> shared expenses, favor or goodwill).

In your research, did you find definitions of the terms "favor" and/or
"goodwill"? Anyone I have ever flown anywhere for any purpose has
thanked me for it---that sounds like "goodwill".

You are right, this whole situation is asinine. Thanks for doing the
work to try to explain it.

[BRO]

Oh come on.
A court would throw this out in an instant - because Mark shared the cost no
matter how you try to twist it.
In reality he is paying more than his share!

He would like to be reimbursed for only the fuel, not the maintenance which
is his portion of the cost of doing the flight!!!!!
like it or not - flying your own plane costs twice the fuel (or abit more)
for every hour you fly.

You can figure all the combinations and permutations, but no matter how you
twist it, it's a private flight.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
> Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively few!
> All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:
>
> The owners are responsible for maitenance, they should pay for the cost of
> "failed maitenance". That includes all the related costs. Perhaps they
> will learn a lesson about preventative maitenance.
>
> The owners should get their portion of the rental fees for the return
> flight.
>
> "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying
to
> > gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with
> something
> > like it.
> >
> > One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from
> the
> > two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> > failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> > "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday
> night.
> > There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on
> Sunday
> > night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home,
> leaving
> > the 182 behind.
> >
> > On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> > we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote
airport
> > in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> > flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing
> to
> > help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would
> like
> > to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So
instead,
> > one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were
> scheduled
> > to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> > agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> > squared away.
> >
> > Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty
> well.
> > The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his
> instrument
> > lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> > 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> > done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> > about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule
> book
> > rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near
future.
> > But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
> >
> > There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100
for
> > the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182
> amounted
> > to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would
> like
> > to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the
182's
> > flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which
would
> > normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
> >
> > Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> > responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> > pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with
the
> > club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> > your club or FBO do in this situation?
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
> >
> >
>
>

[John Galban]

Peter Clark > wrote in message >...
>
> I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
> something like this because they logged time and that was considered
> compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
> somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
> that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
> the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
> paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

The only pilot I've heard dinged for accepting flight time for
compensation was a guy hauling skydivers for no pay, in someone else's
aircraft. Basically, he was time-building by logging hours in his
logbook that he would have otherwise had to pay for by renting an
aircraft. He was also conducting a commercial operation at the time,
but that's a seperate issue.

In this case, Mark owns his own aircraft (see original post). If
Mark pays for the costs of the flight, who is compensating him with
flight time? The answer is no one. If you pay for the entire cost
of the flight, you have a much greater latitude on the types of
flights you can make.

If my brother needs a ride to an airport 200 miles away (for
whatever reason), he just calls me, we hop in my plane and I drop him
off. No problem. Now if I want to share any of the costs of that
flight, the FAA man would definitely be interested. I had no reason
to fly to that airport other than to drop off my bro. If I want to
start collecting money for that sort of thing, I begin to look a lot
like a Part 135 air taxi, rather than a private pilot. Same flight,
with the only difference being that money (compensation) changed
hands. Where private vs. commercial flying is concerned, the FAA has
spelled out pretty clearly what the exceptions are in the regs
(although IMHO, there are still some fuzzy areas).

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

[John Galban]

wrote in message >...
<snip>
> I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
> answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
> nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
> admissible in court if there is ever a problem.
>
Haaahaa! That's a good one! You don't really think that, "I called
Bob at the FSDO and he said it was OK" is going to fly in any FAA
court do you?

Since you've jumped out of the academic and into the real world, the
fact is that you could call 3 different people in a FSDO and get 3
different answers. Then you could call 5 other FSDOs and get more
different answers. None of that will help you in court.

I agree that this newsgroup is not the final word on the regs, but
in my experience, you'll do no better by calling a FSDO for legal
interpretations. What they tell you carries about as much weight as
the comments you'll find here. FWIW, I find the folks here more
knowledgable about the regs than most of the FSDO inspectors I've met.

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

[Cub Driver]

>Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
>responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
>pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
>club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
>your club or FBO do in this situation?

I would think that all the costs are the costs of the repair, hence
chargable to the owner.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John T]

> wrote in message

>
> In your research, did you find definitions of the terms "favor" and/or
> "goodwill"? Anyone I have ever flown anywhere for any purpose has
> thanked me for it---that sounds like "goodwill".

No, I didn't. The terms "favor", "goodwill" nor "compensation" or "for
hire" are defined anywhere I looked. As I said elsewhere, taken to the
extreme, none of us can fly friends or family with us even on local pleasure
flights when we take no money because we may be generating "favor and
goodwill". :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
pilot pays more than his share or not.

Mike
MU-2


"BRO" > wrote in message
. au...
> Oh come on.
> A court would throw this out in an instant - because Mark shared the cost
no
> matter how you try to twist it.
> In reality he is paying more than his share!
>
> He would like to be reimbursed for only the fuel, not the maintenance
which
> is his portion of the cost of doing the flight!!!!!
> like it or not - flying your own plane costs twice the fuel (or abit more)
> for every hour you fly.
>
> You can figure all the combinations and permutations, but no matter how
you
> twist it, it's a private flight.
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively
few!
> > All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:
> >
> > The owners are responsible for maitenance, they should pay for the cost
of
> > "failed maitenance". That includes all the related costs. Perhaps they
> > will learn a lesson about preventative maitenance.
> >
> > The owners should get their portion of the rental fees for the return
> > flight.
> >
> > "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am
trying
> to
> > > gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with
> > something
> > > like it.
> > >
> > > One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases
from
> > the
> > > two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> > > failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight.
Anyway,
> > > "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday
> > night.
> > > There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on
> > Sunday
> > > night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home,
> > leaving
> > > the 182 behind.
> > >
> > > On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his,
who
> > > we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote
> airport
> > > in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of
the
> > > flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was
willing
> > to
> > > help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he
would
> > like
> > > to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So
> instead,
> > > one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were
> > scheduled
> > > to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> > > agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> > > squared away.
> > >
> > > Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty
> > well.
> > > The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his
> > instrument
> > > lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in
the
> > > 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting
everything
> > > done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific
rules
> > > about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club
rule
> > book
> > > rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near
> future.
> > > But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
> > >
> > > There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100
> for
> > > the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182
> > amounted
> > > to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would
> > like
> > > to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the
> 182's
> > > flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which
> would
> > > normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
> > >
> > > Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> > > responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to
be
> > > pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with
> the
> > > club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What
would
> > > your club or FBO do in this situation?
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
> referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
> pilot pays more than his share or not.
>

There's a pretty good summary of many of the issues discussed in this thread at
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html "Traps For The Unwary: Business
Flying And The "Compensation Or Hire" Rule". Complete with references.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
>be violated by the FAA.

Agreed. Mark should just decide he's going to go out and
help get the plane back. He can hold screwdrivers, rent a
car or walk to go get parts, read the repair manual, be an
extra set of eyes and hands to do whatever needs to be done
to help. Then his purpose is the same as the passengers,
and they can share.

>As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
>problem with it.

I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

"Dude" > wrote:

>He should claim
>that it was his desire to help his friends get the plane back. That may be
>a weak excuse for commonality of purpose, but only if he had another
>purpose.

It's not all that weak. He should say he'll go, but only if
he can help once he's there. There's always some extra work
he can do to help. He could even let the other pilot be PIC
on the way out.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
> taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
> I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
> rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
> plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
> rules without risking public safety.

IMHO, the way the rules work for motor vehicles is a good argument for
having the rules interpreted the way the FAA is doing now. There are plenty
of people who stretch the concept of what's commercial and what's not,
engaging in commercial operations in motor vehicles without a proper
license. This is exactly the kind of stretching that would happen in
aviation if the FAA didn't take such a hard-nosed stance.

I'd love to think that pilots are a unique group and above that sort of
thing, but history says otherwise. Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service. So, the example you're providing doesn't appear to me to
offer any difference than what the situation is in aviation.

Pete

[[email protected]]

> I agree that this newsgroup is not the final word on the regs, but
> in my experience, you'll do no better by calling a FSDO for legal
> interpretations. What they tell you carries about as much weight as
> the comments you'll find here. FWIW, I find the folks here more
> knowledgable about the regs than most of the FSDO inspectors I've met.

That is a really sad statement. I'm not doubting its validity, though
my contact with FSDO has been very seldom. But it is sad nonetheless.

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

<some snippage>

> Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to
> the store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge
> your friend for that service. So, the example you're providing
> doesn't appear to me to offer any difference than what the situation
> is in aviation.
>
> Pete
>

Yes, but there is nothing wrong with your friend paying for your gas
used, absolutley nothing (not saying that's the way the regs read, but
that they SHOULD read that way). That's were the aviation laws need to
be modified. I agree if you start making interpretations about maint
reserves, etc. then you have a problem since it would be very easy to
manipulate the numbers without some definate standard. But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too. If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right????? For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too... where does
it stop?

--
ET >:)
(from the perspective of a future Student Pilot)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
>pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
>whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
>the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

>As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
>to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
>that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
>more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
>driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
>for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
>already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

I've got no comment on changing automotive licensing, but I
don't see the advantage of prohibiting activities in an
airplane that are legal in a car.

>Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
>store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
>for that service.

But he can legally reimburse you 100%.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Michael]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.

Everyone here is worrying about legality, but I'll give you some
practical advice.

The $70 parts and labor are clearly billable to the owners. They
won't complain.

The $100 travel time is questionable. Bill it to the owners, and they
might be OK with it - or they might complain that a local mechanic
could be used. A lot depends on their relationship with the mechanic
used and their relationship with the mechanics local to where the
plane was left.

Do you want a policy of needing to consult with owners every time
there has to be an off-field repair? Or maybe a restriction on how
far from home the aircraft can go? Because that's what you're going
to get if you bill them for this without their consent. Ask them if
they feel it's fair, if not eat it.

The $175 for Mark's fuel is likely not even close to what his real
operating cost was. No, he's not legally entitled to it - it does
legally put him in violation of Part 135. It's also how things are
done - deal with it. You can easily not pay him - and that will be
the last time ANYONE on the field will do you that kind of favor.
Trust me - word will get around among the owners. Imagine how much
travel time billing from the mechanic there would have been for
driving out there.

Once you accept that Mark has to be paid, you also have to realize
that it's a cost of getting the plane fixed (meaning getting the
mechanic there) and a cost of getting the plane home (which would not
have occurred had the plane not been broken). So who pays? You can
easily argue that the owners should pay, but then the question becomes
this - what would it have cost to have the local mechanic do it? What
would it have cost to drive there and get it?

The $270 in rental fees on the way home is a thorny issue. Paul has a
reasonable case - he would have flown the aircraft home if it wasn't
broken. Make him pay it, and you're going to encourage members to fly
unairworthy aircraft home, or not to take long trips. Once your club
gets a reputation as a place where long trips are a problem, your
membership will change - and not for the better. Make Luke pay the
full amount, and you can bet he (and any other club member) isn't
going to be real interested in changing his plans to help out.

The real solution here is this - FIRST, figure out what you want the
policy to be. THEN, assign the costs in such a way as to be
consistent with the policy. Be prepared to either **** people off or
eat the cost.

Michael

[Tony Cox]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> > Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
> >pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take
the
> >whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not
give
> >the inch.
>
> We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
> "compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
> of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
> out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
> not being engaged in.

The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
device for the benefit of air taxi operators.

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

[Todd Pattist]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
>reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
>know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

Agreed, and it's a valid regulatory purpose that I support.

>In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
>pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
>such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
>a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
>missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
>device for the benefit of air taxi operators.
>
>Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
>the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
operation can't operate under those restrictions.
Reimbursement of direct expenses seems reasonable to me and
isn't commercial activity.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Tony Cox]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
> >
> >Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
> >the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.
>
> I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
> out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
> operation can't operate under those restrictions.

How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.

"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse. Regulating any
payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
safety one.

[Todd Pattist]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
>certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
>of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
>flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.

This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
but that's not the only issue around.

>"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse.

And "all available information" (91.103 Preflight action.)
and "careless or reckless" (91.13) are not? I agree some
times these are tough calls, but this is a sign of
commercial activity.

>Regulating any
>payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
>safety one.

No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue.

I think the private pilot rules should do two things:

1) The passengers should understand the risk.
2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business,
so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he
shouldn't be allowed to profit.



Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Tony Cox]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>
> >How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
> >certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
> >of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
> >flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.
>
> This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
> but that's not the only issue around.

Says you. Says I, "it's the only reasonable justification for
commercial flight regulation".

>
> >"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse.
>
> And "all available information" (91.103 Preflight action.)
> and "careless or reckless" (91.13) are not? I agree some
> times these are tough calls, but this is a sign of
> commercial activity.

I always think of people 'holding out' as advertising. I say
it's too vague because it doesn't seem to cover on-the-side
word of mouth sort of activity.

>
> >Regulating any
> >payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
> >safety one.
>
> No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue.

I think you're too hung up on 'commercial' part. The only
issue that *should* matter is whether unsuspecting members
of the public who just want to get somewhere are not exposed
to excessive risk. This is the rational behind pt 135 operation,
or at least it should be. People 'in the know' -- those who have
completed pilot training or who have been around aircraft as
mechanics -- are well aware of the risks. If you don't accept
this, then we might as well dispense with the private/commercial
certificate distinction completely.

Just because "Mark" wants $100 or even $5000 has no
effect on the risks that his passengers take - risks which they
are aware of in any case. That's why I say it's not a safety
issue -- unlike the general air taxi case where this is clearly
an incentive to recruit 'unknowledgeable' passengers who
(arguably) ought to have their risks 'bounded' more tightly
by regulation.

Now my libertarian leanings say that perhaps we should
allow anyone to fly anywhere with a private pilot, as long
as they sign a waiver first. This, I suppose, could be argued
in a different thread. But this is _not_ what I'm arguing
here. These 'customers' know the risks, and if it wasn't for
the fact that their damn plane had broken down they'd be
taking those risks themselves. So the money is irrelevant
because it has no effect whatsoever on risk, perceived or
actual.

>
> I think the private pilot rules should do two things:
>
> 1) The passengers should understand the risk.
> 2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business,
> so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he
> shouldn't be allowed to profit.

What are you, as socialist? What do you care if he
makes a buck? His 'customers' know the risks - they
fly as (at least) private pilots all the time (I don't know
an A&P who isn't now or hasn't ever been a pilot).
He's not attempting to 'draw in' the general public, and
any 'profit' he makes is none of your business.

Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> [...] But I should be
> able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
> without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

If it were certain that all pilots would adhere strictly to that sort of
reimbursement, there would be no problem. But pilots are just like other
people too, and there are always going to be the bad apples that refuse to
obey the spirit of the law (and sometimes the letter of the law).

The problem is that as soon as you allow some kinds of compensation for
favors, where there was no common purpose, and in fact in some cases, the
paying party didn't even participate in the flight, the line between "legal"
and "not legal" becomes very fuzzy. The extremes are easy to identify, but
there's always going to be someone who wants to push the limits of the law,
and engage in what is essentially a commercial operation, while calling it a
"reimbursed favor for a friend".

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed. Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

> Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
> Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too.

Since there is an explicit exception for these kinds of operations, they
don't. However, until that exception was written, charitable airlifts WERE
definitely a concern with respect to their legality.

> If I get a "good
> feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
> by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
> complied with 135 right?????

As far as the FAA is concerned, only tangible compensation matters.
"Tangible" includes things we might consider "intangible" by strict
definition, such as logging time without paying for it, but it certainly
does not include psychological effects.

> For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
> costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too...

Interesting you should mention that. Deductions have in fact been a grey
area in the past. I'm not sure if the FAA has finally resolved that. But
note that the financial gain due to a deduction is typically only going to
be a small fraction of the total cost of the flight.

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> <snip>
> > I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
> > answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
> > nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
> > admissible in court if there is ever a problem.
> >
> Haaahaa! That's a good one! You don't really think that, "I called
> Bob at the FSDO and he said it was OK" is going to fly in any FAA
> court do you?
>
> Since you've jumped out of the academic and into the real world, the
> fact is that you could call 3 different people in a FSDO and get 3
> different answers. Then you could call 5 other FSDOs and get more
> different answers. None of that will help you in court.

It works very much like the acedemic world. When an advisor tells you
that you can subsitute one class for another, unless it is clearly
written as a substitute, GET IT IN WRITING. I can't tell you the
number of people I know that got a letter in the mail saying they
missed a class when they expected to receive their degree.
Its the same thing with the FSDO. If its worth anything, GET IT IN
WRITING. When I wanted to install a non-TSO'd attitude indicator as a
back up on the other side of my panel (labeled VFR only :) ) I got it
(337) in writing.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
> move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed.
> Until
> then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever
> gets
> into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
> are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

--
Bob Noel

[Bill Hale]

Some observations on this thread:

1. Rule 1. It doesn't have to make sense. Don't ever forget it.

2. Maybe Mark's "common purpose" was to go flying. Does he
have to have a particular place in mind as a destination
to acheive his purpose?

3. Such trips should always be "Dual Instruction" when
possible.

4. This was a pretty sane debate, compared to, for example
rec.music.opera. Over there, at least 3/4 of the messages
would diss the combatants sexual orientation!!

Bill Hale

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Truesdell wrote:
>
> The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
> Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
> "Mark" didn't receive a dime.

I doubt that. The FAA specifically says that, if several employees are expected
to attend a meeting (for example), and one of them flies the group there, he can
accept compensation from the company for the trip, in addition to his salary. In
that case, every one of his fellow employees are drawing their salary, and that's
not part 135.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Hale wrote:
>
> 4. This was a pretty sane debate, compared to, for example
> rec.music.opera. Over there, at least 3/4 of the messages
> would diss the combatants sexual orientation!!

People interested in opera rarely are forced to meet their newsgroup counterparts.
Any of us could run into other posters pretty much any time (after all, airplanes
*do* allow us to travel extensively). And with the FAA and landings databases, we
can find out where that other SOB is.

You really don't want to **** off someone who knows how airplanes work, has a
set of tools, and knows where your plane lives.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Richard Kaplan]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...

> Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
> the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
> the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

If he is deemed to be "holding out" to the public in return for partial fuel
reimbursement, then this would clearly be in violation of Part 135.

Let's look at it this way. Suppose you put a sign at your local airport
saying "Discount airplane rides -- pay only half the cost of gas". By your
reasoning this would be legal; by precedent this would be unequivocally
illegal.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

Of course they do. Pilots may act against them, but those pilots had no
reasonable reason to believe that they were doing so legally.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Everyone here is worrying about legality, but I'll give you some
> practical advice.

Thank you, Michael! You really summed things up. As this thread begins to
wear thin, I will throw in a few observations.

First of all, I am glad that I provided a thread that revealed a great deal
to me about the compensation for hire rules and the case law that surrounds
them. I learned a great deal. But I also must say that I received only a
few answers to my original question which was, "how do the FBOs and clubs
that you deal with handle this situation". Even though I really enjoyed the
responses regarding Mark's dangerous dance with the FARs, and even though I
could get wrapped up in all the ethical and moral standards which govern who
should pay for what, those really weren't the kinds of answers I was looking
for.

I really just want to know what rules and policies are in place at other
businesses which rent aircraft out. The club, in my mind, has failed in
this case because nobody ever decided what would happen in this
all-too-predictable scenario, and no rules were in the by-laws to govern
this decision. As a result, Paul -- the renter pilot -- had no idea what to
expect, and that's just no way to run things.

But then again, maybe the split nature of the responses stems from the fact
that there really ARE no consistent policies across FBOs and clubs for
situations like this one. I know for a fact that one of the local
establishments in these parts would have laid into Paul with fees for every
last penny involved in getting the aircraft home, and probably would have
tacked some additonal penalty onto the bill as well. That's all well and
good as a single indicator, but one of the reasons that we even have a club
is that so many of us were frustrated with the policies at this particular
FBO, and we don't exactly want to emulate their punitive polices. So if
anyone else has any experience with this kind of situation from another FBO
or club, I am still anxious to hear about how other places deal with it.

Now that that's out of the way, I guess I should give some update and
clarify a small number of points.

First, the owners knew about the mechanic's trip beforehand, and were happy
for him to go. They have developed a good relationship with this particual
A&P, and I think they felt more comfortable with him than they would have
with some unknown mechanic at the remote field. The owners definitely won't
have a problem with either the $70 in parts and labor, or the $100 that the
A&P billed as a travel fee.

The exact amount of Mark's fuel costs are still up in the air at this point,
but I know for a fact that he has been warned to think very, very carefully
about what he asks for. His thinking is still ongoing at this point, and
I'll let him come to that decision on his own.

Our original renter pilot, Paul, refuses to acknowledge any responsibiliby
for any of these costs. Since the club had no standing policy on this
question, there is no legitimate way in which the club can force Paul to pay
it. Frankly, if it were me, I would have just paid for the return flight
and avoided all the controversy about it. I also would not have left the
plane stranded in the first place, and would have hung around until it got
fixed. But Paul is pretty adamant and will not volunteer anything at all to
defray these costs, and the club has no policies on the books which say that
he has to. So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and risk
****ing them off.

After looking at this issue about 100 times in the last 5 days, I think I
have finally formed my own thoughts on the matter. It was a maintenance
issue which took the plane down, and the owners are clearly on the hook for
fixing the aircraft and returning it to an airworthy condition. So it is
the owner's problem that the alternator went out. The only reason why the
alternator went bad 250 miles from here, however, is that Paul decided to
take it there. The owners are responsible for fixing the problem,
regardless of where the plane is when the problem occurs. But Paul's job
was to get that plane back here. Nobody else took the plane there, and
nobody else should bear the responsiblity of getting it home.

I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
problems. But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
retrieve the aircraft. The two situations cannot be separated from one
another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay to
get them home.

Let's say Paul had stayed, gotten the problem fixed the next day, then then
flown the plane home. Clearly, he would have been billed for the 2.3 hours
it took to fly from there to here. Paul instead made a decision that it was
more important to get home than to take care of the aircraft which had been
entrusted to his care. Fair enough, that's his call. But that doesn't let
him escape his obligation to get the plane back to where the rest of the
membership can use it. If you make the decision to leave the plane
stranded, you have to own up to the costs that your decision is throwing
onto everyone else.

As our Chief CFI said to me today, "do we really need a rule which says that
when you take one of the club's airplanes, you have to bring it back?"
Sadly, I think we do. Thanks for your help, everybody!



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> circular.

Huh? Sounds to me like you didn't bother to read what I wrote in the
earlier post before you decided you wanted to contradict me.

I never wrote that you could stop pilots from breaking the rules. I simply
said that you could at least ensure that the rules are black and white.

If you want to play "pick it apart", try reading it first.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> [...] Even though I really enjoyed the
> responses regarding Mark's dangerous dance with the FARs, and even though
I
> could get wrapped up in all the ethical and moral standards which govern
who
> should pay for what, those really weren't the kinds of answers I was
looking
> for.

Well, you got the answers that were available, and then the thread expanded
to other related topics. That's not uncommon on Usenet. Be thankful it
didn't turn into some political tirade. :)

> [...] So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
> people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and
risk
> ****ing them off.

Between those two choices, the club probably should bear the cost, since
after all, it is the club who failed to clarify what the policy would be in
the first place. I suppose the club could charge it back to the owners, but
it doesn't sound like good business to me, nor is it clear that should the
owners decide to take it to court, that they would lose.

> [...] So it is
> the owner's problem that the alternator went out. The only reason why the
> alternator went bad 250 miles from here, however, is that Paul decided to
> take it there.

Um, I'm not sure what you mean here. Nothing in your original post
suggested that there was any reason for Paul to suspect the alternator was
going to fail before he departed. Assuming he didn't, I don't see how "Paul
decided to take it there" has any bearing. Airplanes are, after all, all
about going places. It's practically a foregone conclusion that if a
failure should happen, it will happen somewhere relatively far away from
home.

As for whether Paul should be expected to remain with the airplane or should
be expected to pay for the return flight, I think your logic is a little
off. First of all, it may not have been possible for him to remain with the
airplane. As for paying for the return flight, it gets back to what the
club is warranting. Renting is expensive, and the renter has very little
control over most of the things an owner would normally control. These are
the downsides. The upside is that the renter doesn't have to worry about
maintenance.

IMHO, this also includes any hassles related to a failure that occurs away
from the airplane's home base. Assuming the renter didn't cause the
failure, why should he have to pay for use of the airplane after that
failure? It was only "Paul's job to get that plane back here" up until the
point where the airplane failed.

Compare it to a rental car, for example. You can bet that if I rented a
car, and that car broke down somewhere, there's no way I'd pay for any
mileage past what I'd already driven. I would contact the rental company,
and expect them to high-tail it out to my location with a replacement car so
I could get on my way. If they refused that, I'd make my own arrangements
and let them deal with the car in their own time. I sure as heck wouldn't
pay for *their* mileage back to the rental office, after they got the car
fixed and drove it back themselves.

Frankly, I would expect the rental company, should I be significantly
inconvenienced (more than a 30 minute delay or so, maybe shorter depending
on my schedule), to give me a significant discount, even if they do provide
a replacement car. And a real high-class outfit ought to provide the entire
rental for free.

So, in the case of the airplane, if the club really wants to be known as a
responsible outfit, they should have flown out a replacement airplane, or
otherwise assisted in arranging for alternative transportation for the
renter. They definitely should not expect the renter to pay for any time
beyond what HE actually flew. And frankly, they really ought to discount or
eliminate altogether the charges for the time he did fly.

I realize that aviation is a business with thin margins. But if you don't
treat your customers properly, your margins mean nothing, because your
customers disappear. The fact that this is a club doesn't change things.
If the club doesn't have the margins to cover this sort of thing, they need
to raise their rates enough so that they do. Yes, this means that everyone
pays a little more. But if the club has decent maintenance of the
airplanes, we're not talking any amount that anyone would notice, and it
will return huge dividends in goodwill.

> I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
> costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
> problems.

Yes, it might as well. However, I don't think you really need to even
consider that possibility to see why the renter should not be charged to
bring the plane back.

> But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
> overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
> retrieve the aircraft.

No, the same could not be said. The VFR pilot is, by definition, subject to
the whim of the weather (as is the IFR pilot, for that matter). As long as
the club has a reasonable policy for dealing with weather delays, such as
what I mentioned in my first reply to your post, there should be no need for
anyone to come rescue him. Any pilot should be prepared to be delayed by
weather, and should not need a rescue. Of course, if the pilot chooses to
avail himself of that option, understanding the extra costs that he will
incur, that's another thing. But that's not a normal, expected outcome of
being weathered in. Waiting is.

> The two situations cannot be separated from one
> another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
> office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay
to
> get them home.

Huh? Again, your logic is flawed. Weather simply means the pilot will be
late coming back with the plane; the club has no responsibility to get them
home. Mechanical failure is completey different. Furthermore, I doubt the
club would have pilots calling to complain about a mechanical problem when
they were really just weathered in. After all, mechanical problems need
fixing, and it's easily verified whether a mechanical problem really existed
or not.

> Let's say Paul had stayed, gotten the problem fixed the next day, then
then
> flown the plane home. Clearly, he would have been billed for the 2.3
hours
> it took to fly from there to here.

Why? Only the FARs would require that he be billed, assuming he he didn't
have a commercial rating. Otherwise, the club should not only waive any
charges for the flight home, but should also pay for his overnight lodging.

> Paul instead made a decision that it was
> more important to get home than to take care of the aircraft which had
been
> entrusted to his care.

"Entrusted to his care"? Excuse me? That's just silly. The aircraft was
"entrusted to his care" only inasmuch as the aircraft met the implied
warranty of airworthiness. The instant it failed that, it is no longer his
responsibility. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that if he had an
engine failure in flight, but failed to land the airplane without any
damage, you'd send him the bill for the repairs.

> Fair enough, that's his call. But that doesn't let
> him escape his obligation to get the plane back to where the rest of the
> membership can use it.

He had no such obligation, once the mechanical failure occured.

> As our Chief CFI said to me today, "do we really need a rule which says
that
> when you take one of the club's airplanes, you have to bring it back?"

I can tell you, if I was a member of a club that created a rule like that
that included mechanical failures, I would quit in a heartbeat. I want a
club that will take care of their airplanes, and stand by their own
responsibility to the club members renting the airplane to provide an
airworthy airplane. I don't want a club that feels it has the right to pass
the buck to renters who have the misfortune to have the hot potato in their
hands when something breaks.

It's bad enough Paul had the inconvenience of having an airplane break while
he was using it, but now you want him to PAY for that privilege? That's
just silly.

Pete

[Geoffrey Barnes]

Thanks, Peter. Everything you say has great merit, and I agree with all of
your points. As you noted, the club could of course raise our hourly rate
to build up a margin that would allow us to deal with these contingencies at
no cost to the member who finds himself stranded someplace. At the end of
the day, we either do that or we ask individual pilots to take
responsibility for getting the plane home after the owner-financed repairs
have been accomplished.

So in this case, it really is a key fact that this is a club and not just
another FBO. We have members, and not just simple customers, and it will be
the members who must decide which way they want to go. The club currently
passes virtually all of the rental fees back to the owners of the planes,
and what little it does keep mostly goes back out the door in sales tax.
For the most part, this particular club has historically sided with keeping
the hourly costs down for all of the members and has shunned taking on
additional expenses such as paying for ferrying costs when the PIC decides
to abandon an aircraft somewhere else. If I were handicapping the way that
the membership will vote, I suspect that they will prefer to keep the hourly
costs where they are while accepting the potential for having to pay
ferrying costs in the future.

That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.
I still really appreciate your comments, though, and I thank you for a very
good response that must have taken a goodly amount of time to write. You
are a quality guy, mate, and I thank you for it!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
> thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
> _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
> with the FAA.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> You really don't want to **** off someone who knows how airplanes work,
has a
> set of tools, and knows where your plane lives.

Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator
goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George! Uh, you aren't still
****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George?
Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! <g>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

[Tony Cox]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
> > thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
> > _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
> > with the FAA.
>
> I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
> agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
> whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
> positions where they face a difficult decision.
>
> For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
> that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
> impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
> with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
> other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
> the next office comes available, right?
>
> But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
> he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
> PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
> is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
> bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
> missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
> I just earned that morning.
>
> Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
> situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
> understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
> additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
> probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
> rule is in place.
>

Except that the situation you've just described is in fact now
completely legal. You can even be more relaxed and get reimbursed
for flying yourself and your boss. Part 135 rules don't apply.

The difference is that in your situation you were going to the same
meeting, so there is a common purpose. In "Mark"'s case, he'd never
have gone to the airfield without being asked to help out.

Risk wise, I agree with you. Your situation is far riskier than for Mark.
Which only goes to show that the current rules about commercial operation
don't properly address 'risk' nor 'implied consent', which in my opinion
are the only reasons for having them in the first place.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
>
> Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator
> goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George!

Hey, I don't know anything about alternators! Really! Of course, I *have* been
told that a bad adjustment of the voltage reg ....... Uh .. never mind.

> Uh, you aren't still
> ****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George?

Of course not! Don't even remember the exchange! :-)

> Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! <g>

It's a screwdriver, but, ok, if you insist. :-)

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Mike Rapoport]

I guess that I see it differently.

The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
replace things to insure better reliability.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Thanks, Peter. Everything you say has great merit, and I agree with all
of
> your points. As you noted, the club could of course raise our hourly rate
> to build up a margin that would allow us to deal with these contingencies
at
> no cost to the member who finds himself stranded someplace. At the end of
> the day, we either do that or we ask individual pilots to take
> responsibility for getting the plane home after the owner-financed repairs
> have been accomplished.
>
> So in this case, it really is a key fact that this is a club and not just
> another FBO. We have members, and not just simple customers, and it will
be
> the members who must decide which way they want to go. The club currently
> passes virtually all of the rental fees back to the owners of the planes,
> and what little it does keep mostly goes back out the door in sales tax.
> For the most part, this particular club has historically sided with
keeping
> the hourly costs down for all of the members and has shunned taking on
> additional expenses such as paying for ferrying costs when the PIC decides
> to abandon an aircraft somewhere else. If I were handicapping the way
that
> the membership will vote, I suspect that they will prefer to keep the
hourly
> costs where they are while accepting the potential for having to pay
> ferrying costs in the future.
>
> That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
> every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.
> I still really appreciate your comments, though, and I thank you for a
very
> good response that must have taken a goodly amount of time to write. You
> are a quality guy, mate, and I thank you for it!
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications
flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
> > thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
> > _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
> > with the FAA.
>
> I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
> agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
> whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
> positions where they face a difficult decision.
>
> For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
> that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
> impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
> with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
> other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
> the next office comes available, right?
>
> But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
> he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
> PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
> is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
> bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
> missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
> I just earned that morning.
>
> Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
> situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
> understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
> additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
> probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
> rule is in place.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
> every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.

Obviously, I disagree. But as long as the club is clear about the policy, I
guess they can set whatever policy they want.

However, just keep in mind that, just as the private pilot renter would be
required by FAR to pay for the flight back, should he choose to stay with
the plane until it's fixed, the club can only legally bill back the cost of
having someone else fly the plane back if that someone else has a commercial
certificate. Otherwise, the person flying the plane back is required to pay
for the flight.

Pete

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> > This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
> > but that's not the only issue around.
>
> Says you. Says I, "it's the only reasonable justification for
> commercial flight regulation".

Another justification is that when a pilot is "holding out" or is receiving
compensation, history shows that such a pilot is more likely to fly in more
inclement weather. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to hold
the airplane to a higher maintenance standard and to hold the pilot to a
higher standard re: ratings and experience.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...

> Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot iaccept an offer of
payment
> for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
> Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Absent some other clear explanation, the presence of such a dead-head leg on
the return trip would raise a significant suspicion in my mind that the
outbound trip did not have a commonality of purpose.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...

> The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
> Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
> "Mark" didn't receive a dime.

Actually, the paid mechanic's presence does nothing at all to make this a
Part 135 operation. The mechanic was not part of the flight crew so his
presence was irrelevant for the purpose of determining if this is Part 135.
If you want to hire a cabin attendant and/or onboard entertainer for your
Part 91 flights, that is just fine as long as they are not flight crew.

Interestingly, you could also hire a paid flight instructor and it would
STILL not be a Part 135 operation; in fact, it would not even be a
commercial for hire operation as long as the flight instructor did not
provide the airplane.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> I am not. Is there a specific rule that says that because someone on the
> plane is getting paid to go somewhere that it is now a 135 operation?

You are correct -- there is no such rule. In fact, you could could pay a
flight instructor to come along in an airplane you own and it is not a
commercial operation. Even if the instructor acts as PIC, he need only have
a third class medical in fact; a second class medical is not required for
flight instruction.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I guess that I see it differently.
>
>The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
>when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
>replace things to insure better reliability.

Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

[Doug Carter]

Peter Clark wrote:
> Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
> maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
> lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
> delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
> that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
failure is not important nor even considered in this
process. Target identification is based on depth of
pockets, period.

We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
average representation of Jews within the population of
lawyers.

Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
lead the charge on tort reform!!

[Dan Thompson]

So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark wrote:
> > Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
> > maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
> > lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
> > delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
> > that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?
>
> When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
> be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
> created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
> damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
> failure is not important nor even considered in this
> process. Target identification is based on depth of
> pockets, period.
>
> We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
> U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
> average representation of Jews within the population of
> lawyers.
>
> Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
> lead the charge on tort reform!!

[John T]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message

>
> So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
> caused you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product
> on principle? Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off
> you. (You better pray that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Tort reform" does not mean "no more lawsuits".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

I agree that there are infant mortality failures that can't be predicted and
the manufacturer is responsible for those. The owners could have replace
the alternator the day before but didn't. They are the ones making the
maitenance decisions so they need to live with the consequences.

Mike
MU-2




"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >I guess that I see it differently.
> >
> >The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
> >when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
> >replace things to insure better reliability.
>
> Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
> maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
> lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
> delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
> that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?
>

[Doug Carter]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
> you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
> Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
> that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.

If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
caused the other party.

My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
wanted to make a ton of money.

How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
did not contribute to the crash?

[Dan Thompson]

OK, so you would sue the maker of a defective product that made you a
quadraplegic. I respect that.

Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal. Or are you going to argue your own
case to the jury, from a gurney wheeled into the courtroom? The lawyer is
going to have out of pocket expenses in this lawsuit, where's that money
going to come from?

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay? Should you be required to prove
you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> > So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
caused
> > you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on
principle?
> > Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better
pray
> > that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)
>
> I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
> system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
> personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
> action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.
>
> If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
> else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
> you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
> caused the other party.
>
> My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
> for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
> of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
> wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
> wanted to make a ton of money.
>
> How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
> Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
> for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
> did not contribute to the crash?

[Doug Carter]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
> for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.

First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
for society? I don't think so.

While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
"appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
more from this trade off than in Japan or England?

I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
"maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
"maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
slippery slope to be on though...

> And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
> the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
> pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?

I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
would be achieved.

>Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
because you are creating a potential liability by putting
that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
potential liability as well.

But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
have access to a doctor to deliver her child.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:48:25 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I agree that there are infant mortality failures that can't be predicted and
>the manufacturer is responsible for those. The owners could have replace
>the alternator the day before but didn't. They are the ones making the
>maitenance decisions so they need to live with the consequences.

This is where I must have missed something in the original poster's
set of facts. If the owners are doing minimally the FAA required
maintenance on the aircraft and the alternator was showing no sign of
problems when the pilot took off with it, how is the failure
automatically a result of the owner's negligence, which appears to be
your position? Are you somehow going to know to replace an apparently
perfectly good alternator the day before it shows signs of problems
and subsequently breaks down? There is no indication here that the
alternator was squawked prior to this flight. There is nothing in the
record that shows whether or not at the onset of the flight there was
an alternator light on in the aircraft, or whether or not the
voltmeter was showing normal things during the runup checks. I assume
that the pilot wouldn't take the aircraft out if it the light was on
or the voltmeter was showing wrong, right? It would not be airworthy.
So, are you expecting the owners to call Ms. Cleo and find out it's
going to break and then arrange to have it replaced before the pilot
picked up the aircraft? Until something is uncovered during
maintenance (there is no mention of lax maintenance here) or during
runup and then squawked (at which point the flight should not have
left the originating airport) the owner has no way of knowing to
replace something. I include in routine maintenance those things with
wear-lives that have listed hours-to-replace/rebuild even though they
might not be showing anything wrong at the time they're
replaced/rebuilt.

I'm just saying that if the owners had deferred fixing a known issue
with the alternator then yes, definitely negligence and not only their
issue, but they should be picking up 100% of all costs including food,
lodging, and rental cars - but if they did the required maintenance,
with no known issues deferred (and there is no evidence in this set of
facts to contend otherwise), I am having problems seeing how anyone
could contrive owner negligence into this scenario.

>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>
>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I guess that I see it differently.
>> >
>> >The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
>> >when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
>> >replace things to insure better reliability.
>>
>> Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
>> maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
>> lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
>> delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
>> that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?
>>
>

[Dave S]

My comments are made without reading the other posts, so I apologize if
it duplicates any responses.

Unfortunately, if the Club has not specifically addressed this issue in
its policies or by-laws it can get pretty interesting.

The club that I am a member of, Bay Area Aero Club in the Houston area
has the rule that a Pilot who leaves an aircraft "out" and returns
without the aircraft is responsible for 100% of the costs of recovery,
but is given first dibs at the effort (within reason.. same day, next
day or offering to buy commercial fare for the recovery pilot to fly out).

In out club, the owner bears 100% of maintenance costs. In the event of
an incident or accident (in motion or not, certain deductibles apply).
Maintenance does necessarily require bringing your own mechanic cross
country, so this was a MAINTENANCE decision by the owner, and in my
situation/setting, the travel time, parts and labor costs would be 100%
the responsibility of the owner. The owners made a CHOICE to ferry their
own mechanic by air rather than drive them or use local labor. There was
an A&P on field who would have been there the next business day. I would
have a hard time charging that to the pilot. Maintenance costs are part
of the owner's cost of owning planes, regardless of where they occur.

The next part gets muddier in my eyes... A club CFI is ferried out, with
a "student" to recover the plane and bring it back. Ordinarily, the cost
of the plane flying back, plus the costs to travel TO the aircraft are
the responsibility of the pilot who left the aircraft. More than 50-75
miles in my mind justifies air travel and the expenses associated with
it. But, the student is reaping the benefit of club instruction from a
club instructor performing a ferry flight, for free.. and also not
having to pay for his scheduled lesson in the other plane that he DIDNT
get... this just doesnt strike me as kosher. The "student" who came
along on the recovery should contribute in my mind an amount NOT TO
EXCEED the amount he would have expended had he and his instructor NOT
gone on the ferry flight. In other words, he gets to log 182 time, even
if he only pays the 172/warrior price that he WOULD have spent
otherwise. IN MY OPINION, the student shouldnt get a free ride at the
expense of the guy who landed out.

Looking at the numbers you provided, $175 in fuel costs (for Mark) for a
"several hundred mile trip" is quite a bit of fuel.. thats 60-70 gallons
of fuel for a roundtrip.. what did they take? a light twin? a Cessna
Caravan, or a Malibu running flat out? Was this more economical than
using another club airplane for the roundtrip? Was the whole situation
handled as economically as it could have been? Again, if they took a
BIG, gas guzzling plane so they could ferry the mechanic and tools, this
factor should be addressed and partially PAID for by the owner.

I feel that in this situation, the pilot who left the plane should
reasonably be responsible for the costs of getting a pilot TO the plane,
any tiedown or fuel costs associated with leaving it out, and NORMALLY
the wet rate cost of returning the aircraft. Because the aircraft was
used for instruction on the recovery leg, this complicates things in my
eyes, since the "recovery leg" becomes a "revenue leg". The people who
performed/received the instruction should bear SOME of the cost of the
flight, out of principle.

I am guessing that because there is no clear direction on this in the
clubs P&P that there WILL be hurt feelings. There may be people who
quit, or are kicked out of the club, and some of these costs may be
unrecovered, becoming an expense of the club. The lesson here is the
club needs to come up with some concise guidelines as to what is and is
not expected of owners, renters, and recovery pilots when dealing with
recovering a plane that "landed out". The club needs to establish
guidelines regarding what is reasonable and what is not with regards to
costs and economy, as well as what constitues a revenue flight and what
does not, and all the gray areas in between.

My club doesnt go into such detail on many of these issues, but as a
whole we have managed to deal with such situations pretty fairly. I have
landed out twice since I joined nearly 4 years ago. One time I ferried
the owner out in a Mooney the next day to recover his plane.. and I paid
for the mooney and the Owners Grumman's flight time. The other time, I
wasnt charged a dime, despite promising the owner and reminding him
through the club treasurer I would be responsible for flight costs back
to base (both situations were less than 1 hour flying time away).

The by-laws and SOP's for the club I'm in can be found at
www.bayareaaeroclub.org .

Good luck
Dave

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
> like it.
>
> One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the
> two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
> failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway,
> "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night.
> There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday
> night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving
> the 182 behind.
>
> On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
> we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport
> in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the
> flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to
> help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like
> to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead,
> one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled
> to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
> agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
> squared away.
>
> Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well.
> The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument
> lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the
> 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything
> done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules
> about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book
> rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future.
> But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.
>
> There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
> the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
> to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
> to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
> flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
> normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.
>
> Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
> responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
> pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
> club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
> your club or FBO do in this situation?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

No, I don't think we need Ms. Cleo :-). Nor do I think that the owners are
"negligent". The owners are doing the "minimally required maitenance". If
they wanted to know whether the alternator was on its last legs, it is
pretty easy to check the bearings and the brushes wear predictably.
Basically my point of view is that if I am responsible for deciding what to
replace and when, then I am responsible for the outcomes. If I choose to
save money by not doing something and that decision results in a failure,
then I should be financially responsible.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:48:25 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >I agree that there are infant mortality failures that can't be predicted
and
> >the manufacturer is responsible for those. The owners could have replace
> >the alternator the day before but didn't. They are the ones making the
> >maitenance decisions so they need to live with the consequences.
>
> This is where I must have missed something in the original poster's
> set of facts. If the owners are doing minimally the FAA required
> maintenance on the aircraft and the alternator was showing no sign of
> problems when the pilot took off with it, how is the failure
> automatically a result of the owner's negligence, which appears to be
> your position? Are you somehow going to know to replace an apparently
> perfectly good alternator the day before it shows signs of problems
> and subsequently breaks down? There is no indication here that the
> alternator was squawked prior to this flight. There is nothing in the
> record that shows whether or not at the onset of the flight there was
> an alternator light on in the aircraft, or whether or not the
> voltmeter was showing normal things during the runup checks. I assume
> that the pilot wouldn't take the aircraft out if it the light was on
> or the voltmeter was showing wrong, right? It would not be airworthy.
> So, are you expecting the owners to call Ms. Cleo and find out it's
> going to break and then arrange to have it replaced before the pilot
> picked up the aircraft? Until something is uncovered during
> maintenance (there is no mention of lax maintenance here) or during
> runup and then squawked (at which point the flight should not have
> left the originating airport) the owner has no way of knowing to
> replace something. I include in routine maintenance those things with
> wear-lives that have listed hours-to-replace/rebuild even though they
> might not be showing anything wrong at the time they're
> replaced/rebuilt.
>
> I'm just saying that if the owners had deferred fixing a known issue
> with the alternator then yes, definitely negligence and not only their
> issue, but they should be picking up 100% of all costs including food,
> lodging, and rental cars - but if they did the required maintenance,
> with no known issues deferred (and there is no evidence in this set of
> facts to contend otherwise), I am having problems seeing how anyone
> could contrive owner negligence into this scenario.
>
> >
> >Mike
> >MU-2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I guess that I see it differently.
> >> >
> >> >The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be
responsible
> >> >when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
> >> >replace things to insure better reliability.
> >>
> >> Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
> >> maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
> >> lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
> >> delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
> >> that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?
> >>
> >
>

[Dave S]

Peter,

I want to clarify and perhaps disagree with a point you are making...

If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's
bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club
billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING
pilot. The abandoning pilot would have had to pay the flight time to
return the aircraft if he had flown the plane home hisself. I am of the
firm conviction if you abandon a plane 3 hours from home, you should be
prepared to pay for the flight time (i.e. WET RENTAL RATE) of that plane
to get it home, and I dont see where a commercial certificate comes into
play.

Our club does not pay any kind of stipend to members who perform a
recovery, regardless of their rating.

In this particular recovery, though, there appears to have been
instruction (revenue) which muddies the whole who pays what issue.

In the two instances where I have left club planes out, my first phone
call was to the owner of the aircraft (they are very involved, actively
managing the planes) and letting them take lead on deciding how to
handle it. Our club's maintenance officer can only authorize up to $300
in maintenance without owner approval anyways, and as a general rule,
our club's maintenance officer's routine duties involve maintenance at
the base. Any situations that deviate from the norm fall back on the owners.

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
>>every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.
>
>
> Obviously, I disagree. But as long as the club is clear about the policy, I
> guess they can set whatever policy they want.
>
> However, just keep in mind that, just as the private pilot renter would be
> required by FAR to pay for the flight back, should he choose to stay with
> the plane until it's fixed, the club can only legally bill back the cost of
> having someone else fly the plane back if that someone else has a commercial
> certificate. Otherwise, the person flying the plane back is required to pay
> for the flight.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Michael]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote
> But then again, maybe the split nature of the responses stems from the fact
> that there really ARE no consistent policies across FBOs and clubs for
> situations like this one.

Exactly. This varies all over the place, and is dealt with in all
sorts of ways - up to and including one plane I used to rent where the
owner simply didn't want it ever going anywhere far from home.

Realize, however, that the way you handle this situation will set a
precedent. You (and I mean you as a club rather than as an
individual) are setting policy, and you should think very carefully
about the kind of policy you set because it will be hard to change
later.

> The exact amount of Mark's fuel costs are still up in the air at this point,
> but I know for a fact that he has been warned to think very, very carefully
> about what he asks for. His thinking is still ongoing at this point, and
> I'll let him come to that decision on his own.

Then you have already set a policy - you're not going to be readily
forthcoming with fuel costs for owners who help you out in these
situations. That's your decision to make - but realize this is going
to get around, and in all likelihood this will be the last time an
owner helps you out. Proper protocol in this kind of situation is to
pay for all the fuel, and be grateful that you are really only paying
25-50% of the actual costs.

> Our original renter pilot, Paul, refuses to acknowledge any responsibiliby
> for any of these costs. Since the club had no standing policy on this
> question, there is no legitimate way in which the club can force Paul to pay
> it. Frankly, if it were me, I would have just paid for the return flight
> and avoided all the controversy about it. I also would not have left the
> plane stranded in the first place, and would have hung around until it got
> fixed. But Paul is pretty adamant and will not volunteer anything at all to
> defray these costs, and the club has no policies on the books which say that
> he has to.

The ONLY reason that I (and I imagine many others) would choose
renting/clubbing over ownership is exactly this situation - not
bearing responsibility for maintenance. Being able to just leave the
unairworthy plane and say "This is not my problem." That's the only
advantage of renting/clubbing over ownership (either sole or shared)
if you are flying enough to be proficient (CFI's are a special case
here). So make the decision - do you want a club full of people who
average 20 hours a year and a few CFI's? Be forewarned - a few years
of this, and the standard of proficiency will be such that you are
quite likely to find yourself an unattractive insurance risk.

> So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
> people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and risk
> ****ing them off.

You don't pass it on to the owners without their consent - not unless
you want them to start carrying a reserve for such contingencies - at
your expense of course. What I'm telling you is that either you will
lose the airplane, or you WILL pay those costs, one way or another.

> I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
> costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
> problems. But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
> overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
> retrieve the aircraft. The two situations cannot be separated from one
> another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
> office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay to
> get them home.

I guess I don't see it that way. When the plane starts just fine, the
renter is back on the hook for the rescue operation. I think the two
situations are quite easy to separate. Whether you wish to separate
them is a matter of club policy. Right now, you have no club policy.
That's just dumb - you need one. What it should be is up to you
(again, not you as an individual but you as a club) - as long as it's
stated up front, nobody has a legitimate bitch. But push too much of
the maintenance risk onto the club members, and you will lose the ones
who are the most active and fly the most. They won't protest and quit
in disgust - but pretty soon they will be owners and will have no need
for the club.

Michael

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Geoffrey Barnes > wrote:
: First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to
: gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something
: like it.
<snip>
We've heard a lot of how various clubs handle this, let me tell you how
my FBO handles this situation. First, the FBO is a customer-driven, for-profit
organization. They operate about 12 airplanes, 152's, 172's, warriors,
arrows, and a dutchess.
Weather: The FBO dispaches all flights (unlike most clubs), so presumably
the weather is suitable for the flight.
Maintenance: The FBO does routine maintenance, and has a pretty well
maintained fleet.

If the weather turns sour suddenly or the airplane has a maintenance issue,
the renter is expected to not push it; the FBO wants them to leave
("abandon") the airplane at a reasonable airport and the FBO will arrange
for their transportation back to the FBO. The FBO then arranges to recover
the airplane. Sometimes these things are combined: 2 CFI's fly out to
pick up a VFR-only pilot stranded for weather reasons. The renter's
obligation stops when the airplane hobbs stops (unless the FBO deems the
renter "unreasonable", which I have not heard of occurring).
In one case, the airplane & pilot were weathered in for 3 or 4 days
over 800 miles away. The pilot elected to stay with the plane, and the
FBO picked up those expenses (hotel & meals).

I cannot imagine how a corporation could operate any other way, in today's
legal climate. I would think that a lawyer would hold the FBO responsible if
the renter were required to arrange for transporting a mechanical'd or
weathered-in airplane, chose to fly to save $$$, and had an incident/accident.

The FBO is also a customer-driven business enterprise. If the customers
thought they were getting a raw deal they have the option of not being
customers anymore.

--
Aaron Coolidge

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> [...]
> Basically my point of view is that if I am responsible for deciding what
to
> replace and when, then I am responsible for the outcomes. If I choose to
> save money by not doing something and that decision results in a failure,
> then I should be financially responsible.

I'll go one further than Mike's opinion here. IMHO, the question of whether
the owners chose "to save money by not doing something" is irrelevant.
Failures can happen even with the most detailed maintenance. The fact
remains that in any situation, the OWNER is ultimately responsible for costs
related to maintenance. Period. If the airplane is being rented to someone
else, that doesn't change anything. It is the owner upon whom any
maintenance-related expenses should fall.

Of course, a mutually agreed-upon contract that specificies something
different would change this. Renters are free to voluntarily commit to the
liability of maintenance-related costs if they want. But I don't know any
renters who would do so, and in fact one of the few benefits of renting is
that you don't have to deal with these costs, not directly (obviously, those
costs wind up built into the rental fees, but that means that no single
renter will wind up with some surprise expense, the bane of ownership).

Certainly no renter should expect to pay any costs that are not specifically
described prior to the rental.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [...]
> If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's
> bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club
> billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING
> pilot.

The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for
the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would
not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private
certificate, that is clearly against the FARs.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My comments are made without reading the other posts, so I apologize if
> it duplicates any responses.
>>
> Looking at the numbers you provided, $175 in fuel costs (for Mark) for a
> "several hundred mile trip" is quite a bit of fuel.. thats 60-70 gallons
> of fuel for a roundtrip.. what did they take? a light twin? a Cessna
> Caravan, or a Malibu running flat out? Was this more economical than
> using another club airplane for the roundtrip? Was the whole situation
> handled as economically as it could have been? Again, if they took a
> BIG, gas guzzling plane so they could ferry the mechanic and tools, this
> factor should be addressed and partially PAID for by the owner.
>>

Actually $175 is 70 gallons (at $2.50) and presumably Mark is paying for a
third on the flight out and all the fuel on the way back for a total of 210
gallons. Mark's plane must be turbine powered or a DC-3!

Mike
MU-2

[Tony Cox]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
> checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications
> flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
> The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.
>


This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
and not upon other factors.

This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
- flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.

It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
part do) is arbitrate risk.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

>
>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > {tc says}
> > > Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
> > > thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
> > > _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
> > > with the FAA.
> >

[Tony Cox]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Another justification is that when a pilot is "holding out" or is
receiving
> compensation, history shows that such a pilot is more likely to fly in
more
> inclement weather. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to
hold
> the airplane to a higher maintenance standard and to hold the pilot to a
> higher standard re: ratings and experience.

I don't think that "Mark" has been accused of "holding out". It's
not likely to be a very profitable venture either, waiting around at
an airport on the off chance that someone might need to go out and
rescue an airplane....

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:02:01 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>No, I don't think we need Ms. Cleo :-). Nor do I think that the owners are
>"negligent". The owners are doing the "minimally required maitenance". If
>they wanted to know whether the alternator was on its last legs, it is
>pretty easy to check the bearings and the brushes wear predictably.

OK, so there's a document somewhere which tells me how many hours life
my alternator has from last time the brushes were replaced? I don't
know (is there a handy list of everything covered in an annual
somewhere?) - are the brushes and bearings routinely checked at 100hr
or annual inspections? I know that there's a wear indicator on my
vacuum pumps which I'll have swapped out with new at around 80% wear
indicated.

>Basically my point of view is that if I am responsible for deciding what to
>replace and when, then I am responsible for the outcomes. If I choose to
>save money by not doing something and that decision results in a failure,
>then I should be financially responsible.

Personally, I believe the owners are responsible for the cost of
getting the aircraft itself fixed. Unless caused by the renter,
that's generally how it works - even with cars. That having been
said, if I was renting it and was unwilling/unable to wait until a
mechanic fixed it (course, I don't understand why they had to fly a
mechanic in - was there no repair facility at/near the airport the
aircraft landed at?) I'd expect to foot my own rentacar bills and
hotel bills to get back home. It's up to them to get the aircraft
back to the line once it's fixed. So, basically in this case I
believe that if the pilot couldn't wait until the next morning to have
an A&P look at it, he's on his own for rentacar, hotel etc (same as he
should have been if it was a weather issue). The owners are on the
hook for getting a pilot out there to fetch it, and paying for the
repair, which is the difference from weather abandoned - the
abandoning pilot should pay for retrieval if they weren't waiting if
it's weather-induced.

>>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:48:25 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I agree that there are infant mortality failures that can't be predicted
>and
>> >the manufacturer is responsible for those. The owners could have replace
>> >the alternator the day before but didn't. They are the ones making the
>> >maitenance decisions so they need to live with the consequences.
>>
>> This is where I must have missed something in the original poster's
>> set of facts. If the owners are doing minimally the FAA required
>> maintenance on the aircraft and the alternator was showing no sign of
>> problems when the pilot took off with it, how is the failure
>> automatically a result of the owner's negligence, which appears to be
>> your position? Are you somehow going to know to replace an apparently
>> perfectly good alternator the day before it shows signs of problems
>> and subsequently breaks down? There is no indication here that the
>> alternator was squawked prior to this flight. There is nothing in the
>> record that shows whether or not at the onset of the flight there was
>> an alternator light on in the aircraft, or whether or not the
>> voltmeter was showing normal things during the runup checks. I assume
>> that the pilot wouldn't take the aircraft out if it the light was on
>> or the voltmeter was showing wrong, right? It would not be airworthy.
>> So, are you expecting the owners to call Ms. Cleo and find out it's
>> going to break and then arrange to have it replaced before the pilot
>> picked up the aircraft? Until something is uncovered during
>> maintenance (there is no mention of lax maintenance here) or during
>> runup and then squawked (at which point the flight should not have
>> left the originating airport) the owner has no way of knowing to
>> replace something. I include in routine maintenance those things with
>> wear-lives that have listed hours-to-replace/rebuild even though they
>> might not be showing anything wrong at the time they're
>> replaced/rebuilt.
>>
>> I'm just saying that if the owners had deferred fixing a known issue
>> with the alternator then yes, definitely negligence and not only their
>> issue, but they should be picking up 100% of all costs including food,
>> lodging, and rental cars - but if they did the required maintenance,
>> with no known issues deferred (and there is no evidence in this set of
>> facts to contend otherwise), I am having problems seeing how anyone
>> could contrive owner negligence into this scenario.
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >MU-2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I guess that I see it differently.
>> >> >
>> >> >The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be
>responsible
>> >> >when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
>> >> >replace things to insure better reliability.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
>> >> maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
>> >> lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
>> >> delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
>> >> that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Todd Pattist]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>> >Regulating any
>> >payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
>> >safety one.
>>
>> No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue.
>
>I think you're too hung up on 'commercial' part. The only
>issue that *should* matter is whether unsuspecting members
>of the public who just want to get somewhere are not exposed
>to excessive risk.

But the private pilot is allowed to take up unsuspecting
members of the public, so we've already decided it's ok for
him to fly such passengers. The next question is how many
such passengers, and that's where the commercial line is
drawn

>This is the rational behind pt 135 operation,
>or at least it should be. People 'in the know' -- those who have
>completed pilot training or who have been around aircraft as
>mechanics -- are well aware of the risks.

Agreed.

>If you don't accept
>this, then we might as well dispense with the private/commercial
>certificate distinction completely.
>
>Just because "Mark" wants $100 or even $5000 has no
>effect on the risks that his passengers take - risks which they
>are aware of in any case.

But it does impact how many such passengers are exposed to
that risk.

>That's why I say it's not a safety
>issue -- unlike the general air taxi case where this is clearly
>an incentive to recruit 'unknowledgeable' passengers who
>(arguably) ought to have their risks 'bounded' more tightly
>by regulation.
>
>Now my libertarian leanings say that perhaps we should
>allow anyone to fly anywhere with a private pilot, as long
>as they sign a waiver first. This, I suppose, could be argued
>in a different thread. But this is _not_ what I'm arguing
>here. These 'customers' know the risks, and if it wasn't for
>the fact that their damn plane had broken down they'd be
>taking those risks themselves. So the money is irrelevant
>because it has no effect whatsoever on risk, perceived or
>actual.

Agreed. I have the same libertarian leanings and agree that
the A&P and CFI know the risks. I'd have no real problem
allowing the payment of money, but you then have to
recognize that someone might set up a money making business
transporting such pilots. It's not that I object to such a
business, but I'm inclined to think that we should draw the
line somewhere between private. commercial and ATP.

>> I think the private pilot rules should do two things:
>>
>> 1) The passengers should understand the risk.
>> 2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business,
>> so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he
>> shouldn't be allowed to profit.
>
>What are you, as socialist? What do you care if he
>makes a buck?

I don't. I do care if he transports large numbers of
passengers. When he starts transporting large numbers, the
rules are justified in requiring better equipment and more
training.

>His 'customers' know the risks - they
>fly as (at least) private pilots all the time (I don't know
>an A&P who isn't now or hasn't ever been a pilot).
>He's not attempting to 'draw in' the general public, and
>any 'profit' he makes is none of your business.

I don't care if he makes a profit. I just think we should
ease the rules on private pilots. If we are going to have
rules that require better training/equipment, I think
"profit" is a reasonable place to draw the line. It ensures
that there's money there to pay for better
training/equipment.

>Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
>thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
>_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
>with the FAA.

I don't worry about the air taxi operator. I worry about
the imposition of excessively restrictive rules on the
private pilot.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
>doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
>requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
>be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
>and not upon other factors.

I generally agree, but you're arguing for an all or nothing
approach. If a private pilot can pay for the flight and
take his grandma sight seeing, why not others who pay him?
You have to look not only at risk per flight/passsenger, but
also at the total effect of your rule. If it's all or
nothing, either you let the private pilot fly only solo or
you let him fly commercially and impose the higher risk on
larger numbers of passengers. It's reasonable to restrict
the totals as we do now by some limit. I just think the
limit is currently more restrictive than is justified.

>This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
>whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
>the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
>which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
>- flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.
>
>It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
>out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
>either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
>regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
>to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
>intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
>that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
>part do) is arbitrate risk.

They control risk in two ways. One is by requiring certain
training levels. The other is by limiting the number of
operations by prohibiting certain commercial activities that
would result in large numbers of operations. The problem
IMHO is that too many non-comercial activities are
prohibited.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Dude]

The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead, it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard, and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid of
the bad ones.




"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> > Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job
prospects
> > for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.
>
> First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
> income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
> true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
> is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
> this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
> for society? I don't think so.
>
> While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
> money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
> the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
> is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
> "appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
> passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
> more from this trade off than in Japan or England?
>
> I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
> "maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
> Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
> If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
> "maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
> from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
> slippery slope to be on though...
>
> > And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose?
What if
> > the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going
to
> > pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?
>
> I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
> Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
> prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
> side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
> would be achieved.
>
> >Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you
even were allowed to file a lawsuit?
>
> Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
> you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
> because you are creating a potential liability by putting
> that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
> potential liability as well.
>
> But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
> that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
> will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
> products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
> have access to a doctor to deliver her child.

[Tony Cox]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>
> >I think you're too hung up on 'commercial' part. The only
> >issue that *should* matter is whether unsuspecting members
> >of the public who just want to get somewhere are not exposed
> >to excessive risk.
>
> But the private pilot is allowed to take up unsuspecting
> members of the public, so we've already decided it's ok for
> him to fly such passengers.

Well, there is a distinction. Passengers who go for a ride with
a private pilot almost always know him/her & are under no
doubt as to his/her 'amateur' status. People who go to an
air taxi operation expect (and ought to receive) professional
treatment.

> The next question is how many
> such passengers, and that's where the commercial line is
> drawn

I've taken over 30 different people for rides in the last year. I'll
bet there are some air-taxi operations servicing perhaps
only one or two businesses which fall short of that. So I don't
think 'how many' really has much bearing on the issue.

>
> >
> >Now my libertarian leanings say that perhaps we should
> >allow anyone to fly anywhere with a private pilot, as long
> >as they sign a waiver first. This, I suppose, could be argued
> >in a different thread. But this is _not_ what I'm arguing
> >here. These 'customers' know the risks, and if it wasn't for
> >the fact that their damn plane had broken down they'd be
> >taking those risks themselves. So the money is irrelevant
> >because it has no effect whatsoever on risk, perceived or
> >actual.
>
> Agreed. I have the same libertarian leanings and agree that
> the A&P and CFI know the risks. I'd have no real problem
> allowing the payment of money, but you then have to
> recognize that someone might set up a money making business
> transporting such pilots.

Indeed. But in "Mark"'s case, I'm hard pressed to see how
he could make much money out of this. After all, who'd pay to
fly with a private pilot when they can fly themselves?

Still, crafting a FAR for this would need care to exclude the
cowboys. (And I *do* think it would be worthwhile, since helping
someone go get a plane is a fine 'professional' courtesy that ought
to be permitted. Don't forget that even if "Mark" didn't get
reimbursed, he's still not going with a 'common purpose' and so
he's still illegal).

> I don't care if he makes a profit. I just think we should
> ease the rules on private pilots.

I think we're actually in agreement.

> If we are going to have
> rules that require better training/equipment, I think
> "profit" is a reasonable place to draw the line.

I'd consider it a reasonable default. But the 'profit' motive
does already get modified for flight instruction, so I don't
really see that it is a tremndous leap if it gets modified in
"Mark"'s case too.

> It ensures
> that there's money there to pay for better
> training/equipment.

That's a good one. 'Ensures', eh? Any 135 operators
care to comment?

[Mike Rapoport]

I agree. My point was only that the FAA does not seem to consider private
pilots and part 91 aircraft to be competent/safe enough for the general
public. The regulations were written to reflect this.

Mike
MU-2


"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a
minimal
> > checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal
qualifications
> > flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
> > The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.
> >
>
>
> This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
> doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
> requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
> be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
> and not upon other factors.
>
> This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
> whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
> the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
> which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
> - flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.
>
> It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
> out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
> either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
> regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
> to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
> intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
> that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
> part do) is arbitrate risk.
>
> --
> Dr. Tony Cox
> Citrus Controls Inc.
> e-mail:
> http://CitrusControls.com/
>
> >
> >
> > "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > {tc says}
> > > > Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
> > > > thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
> > > > _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
> > > > with the FAA.
> > >
>
>

[Doug Carter]

Dude wrote:
> The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
> that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider
excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and*
most importantly, impose "loser pays."

What good for the goose is good for the gander...if a
lawyer expects to profit from 1/3 of the spoils when he
wins then he should pay 1/3 of the other sides costs if he
loses.

The point is to build a natural check into what is now a
run-a-way system not to preclude the really injured from
recourse.

> The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own.

I agree. There seems to be no incentive for them to do so.

[Todd Pattist]

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>I think we're actually in agreement.

So do I. Now if we could just convince the FAA :-)

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[John T]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message

>
> Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider
> excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and*
> most importantly, impose "loser pays."


What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public
fund" that benefits society at large.

I'm not so upset about the idea of contingency as much as I am about a jury
awarding $40M to somebody too stupid to realize the coffee is hot.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Doug Carter]

John T wrote:

> What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still
> there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad
> guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they
> sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a)
> the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public
> fund" that benefits society at large.
>

Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> John T wrote:
>
> > What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is
still
> > there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the
"bad
> > guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery
they
> > sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to
a)
> > the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other
"public
> > fund" that benefits society at large.
> >
>
> Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
> punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
> enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
> companies from making dangerous products why not simply
> leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
> paid for their actual losses and


the party causing the
> injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

[Russell Kent]

Doug Carter wrote:

> the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell
> mate.

Dave Stadt replied:

> I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Russell Kent

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
> that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal
protection.
>
> The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead,
it
> handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything
or
> anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard,
and
> their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
> monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all
the
> legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your
breath.
>
> Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung
by
> the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
> opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
> ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
> Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
> system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
> gone haywire.
>
> What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid
of
> the bad ones.

Judges are all members of the ABA, too.

[Dave S]

Peter,

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. Does that
count as a commercial operation too? Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>[...]
>>If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's
>>bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club
>>billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING
>>pilot.
>
>
> The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for
> the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would
> not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private
> certificate, that is clearly against the FARs.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Doug Carter]

Russell Kent wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Gee, that seems a little harsh for lying to a government
lawyer.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
> what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
> Is my license in peril in your mind
> because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote...
>
>>I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
>>what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
>>Is my license in peril in your mind
>>because of that? (I'm a private pilot).
>
> Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
> that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
> As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
> charged and being compensated at 100%.
>
> That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
> becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
> some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
costs...

[Dave S]

Thanks.. sounds like we need our club to review things, and perhaps get
a letter of opinion from the FAA/FSDO and/or possibly change our SOP's.

In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at
the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses
incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base. This sounds
like its going to be an interesting meeting this month.

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
>>what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
>>Is my license in peril in your mind
>>because of that? (I'm a private pilot).
>
>
> Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
> that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
> As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
> charged and being compensated at 100%.
>
> That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
> becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
> some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
.. .
> Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
> costs...

That has nothing to do with the operation being considered here.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at
> the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses
> incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base.

If that's your goal, the solution is to make sure you hire a commercial
pilot to fly stranded airplanes back. Since you're passing the costs back
to the original renter anyway, you should have no problem with that. It's
just an extra administrative hassle, is all.

You may even be able to find commercial pilots willing to do the task for no
other compensation than the free use of the airplane. Hours are hours,
after all.

Pete