Rental policy

[Robert]

I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from the
same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are old
and always down because something broke yet again.

I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
normal policy with most FBO's.

It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
plane."

So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C airport),
and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
$1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while it
gets repaired.

Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would be
responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with a
bill.

Robert

[Mike Rapoport]

Sounds like you could rent a car, drive home to Long Beach and return to
Santa Barbara when the plane was fixed and fly it back.

Mike
MU-2

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from
the
> same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
> looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are
old
> and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
> plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
> least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I
really
> didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
> normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C
airport),
> and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
> decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
> $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while
it
> gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would
be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with
a
> bill.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

[Javier Henderson]

"Robert" > writes:

> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from the
> same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
> looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are old
> and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
> plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
> least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
> didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
> normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
> plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C airport),
> and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
> decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
> $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while it
> gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with a
> bill.

I haven't rented in a long time, but most rental FBO's I dealt with
before becoming an owner discouraged (some really heavily) taking the
plane to places far away for extended periods, and instead preferred
that you just took day trippers.

I think the biggest encouragement for me to become an owner was the
crappy rentals (even a brand new, zero hours plane is a crappy rental
if the FBO policies are as draconian as the one mentioned above).

-jav

[Tony Cox]

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."

It looks to me as if they've been "burnt" in the past and
inserted that clause to cover themselves. Perhaps someone
took off with a dodgy alternator & then declared it 'bad'
in Catalina & billed them for the hotel... Anyway, that clause
doesn't look as if it's been written by a lawyer - the "must
remain" part seems too much like slavery & likely to be
too vague to be enforceable.

It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
it won't apply to you.

[Javier Henderson]

"Tony Cox" > writes:

> It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> it won't apply to you.

There are rentals that don't need to be repaired?

-jav

[Peter Duniho]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [...]
> It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> it won't apply to you.

The part about remaining with the airplane or paying $5/mile (up to the
$1000 maximum...yikes!) certainly would.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
> you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.

If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> [...stay 3 days or pay $5/mile up to $1000 for ferrying...]
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would
be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with
a
> bill.

I've never heard of such a policy. Of course, an FBO is free to write into
their contract whatever they think they can get renters to agree to and I've
been an owner too long for me to be able to comment on what's "typical" for
rental agreements.

I definitely wouldn't rent an airplane from an operation that thinks that
sort of language is reasonable though, and I personally agree with the use
of the word "outrageous" to describe the policy.

We just had a similar thread regarding responsibilities of pilots renting a
plane that suffers a mechanical problem while away from home. You might
look back at that thread for insight into the widely varying opinions of the
pilot's responsibility under that kind of situation.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=2484c6d99a5ed5ee&rnum=1

Personally, I feel that one of the few advantages to renting is that you're
not responsible for maintenance issues not of your own doing; language like
this in the contract attempts to take from the renter that one benefit,
making me wonder why anyone would rent at all if it were standard. I said
as much in the above thread.

Pete

[Tony Cox]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > [...]
> > It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> > a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> > the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> > it won't apply to you.
>
> The part about remaining with the airplane or paying $5/mile (up to the
> $1000 maximum...yikes!) certainly would.

Nah. A good lawyer could get you off easy! The way that
clause is written, you're supposed to remain with the plane
for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
repaired is no worse than it was when you took off. And
what does "remain" mean anyway? Sleep in the back seat?

I wouldn't worry about it. It's just some pettifogger's way
of trying to protect themselves after some renter ripped them
off.

[Bill Denton]

Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the plane
needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from
its home location..."

What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you know
that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the airplane
needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other than
it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"

Solution? Don't rent planes with squawks, unless they are extremely minor.



"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from
the
> same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
> looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are
old
> and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
> plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
> least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I
really
> didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
> normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C
airport),
> and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
> decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
> $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while
it
> gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would
be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with
a
> bill.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Robert > wrote:
>least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
>didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
>normal policy with most FBO's.

Every "home made" contract I've ever read has wacky clauses like this.
They almost read like a narrative of a past bad experience the person
writing the contract had.

As others have pointed out, don't be surprised if you interpret FBO
rental agreements to discourage cross country or overnight flights.
I don't own a plane because it's cheaper, I own a plane because I hate
renting (for trips) so much that I never do it. They're a pain to
schedule and even after paying the daily minimums you get hostility from
the FBO and instructors who wanted to use the plane.

On the other hand, as an owner if my plane broke down away from home I'd
have to stay with it, return to it, or get it ferried home if it broke
down. The only advantage I have over renting there is that I get to call
the shots on maintenance with an eye toward avoiding that problem.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Peter Duniho]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [...] you're supposed to remain with the plane
> for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
> repaired is no worse than it was when you took off.

Who said anything about "what needs to be repaired is no worse than it was
when you took off"? It's a given that you would leave the plane at the FBO
if it weren't airworthy there. The question is what happens when it becomes
known to be unairworthy after arriving somewhere else.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the plane
> needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from
> its home location..."

I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the statement
indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the plane
away from its home location".

You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.

> What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
know
> that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the airplane
> needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other than
> it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"

That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says. A
statement that says something along the lines of what you claim it says
would read something like this:

"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."

Without the time-ordering, all the statement says that if the plane's
broken, you have to stay with it. Regardless of when it broke.

Pete

[David Megginson]

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

>>If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
>>you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.
>
> If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
> armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
> sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.

That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a U/S
ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).


All the best,


David

[Roger Long]

It looks absolutely reasonable to me but only because of the first line.

Few renters realize just how responsible they are for the condition of the
aircraft. As far as the FAA is concerned, when the wheels leave the ground,
you are like the captain of a ship. The buck, including the maintenance
buck, stops with you.

If the engine quits and you end up in a field and it turns out it quit
because of an AD that was not complied with, the FAA will want to know if
you reviewed the logbooks and verified that all AD's were CW. If the logs
say CW and they are able to determine that it wasn't, they'll go back to the
shop. If you say, "Huh, I thought the FBO took care of all that.", they may
lift your license for a while. They might even lift it if they just ramp
checked you and found something wrong with the plane.

If you aren't ready to take the responsibility, you shouldn't be in the air.

Of course, tell most FBO's that you'd like to take the logs for the plane
you are going to rent home overnight to review them and they'll look at you
like you were asking for the first four hours free.

--
Roger Long

[Roger Long]

Hmm, reading Peter's post above dissecting the time order of the wording, I
guess I would want a clarification before renting. It looks to me as though
it was written so that a renter rolling the dice by flying away from the
homebase with a known problem would be responsible. Peter is right though,
if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport and found fuel running
out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold him to the rest of it.

If the "being flown" in the first line was replace by "departing the home
base" or "accepting the aircraft for flight" I would consider it reasonable.

--
Roger Long

[Bill Denton]

My comments will be interspersed:


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the
plane
> > needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away
from
> > its home location..."
>
> I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the statement
> indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the
plane
> away from its home location".

I didn't get that interpretation; that language comes directly from the
rental agreement! And while the language may be a bit sloppy, the intent is
perfectly obvious. If the pilot knows something is wrong before he flies, he
would obviously have that information after he has flown.


>
> You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.
>

May I first suggest that it is you who needs to read the statement more
carefully.



> > What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
> know
> > that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the
airplane
> > needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other than
> > it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"
>
> That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
> intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says. A
> statement that says something along the lines of what you claim it says
> would read something like this:
>
> "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
> the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."
>
> Without the time-ordering, all the statement says that if the plane's
> broken, you have to stay with it. Regardless of when it broke.
>
> Pete

The problem is that you haven't the slightest idea what the intent of this
section of the agreement is. It is saying that if you are aware of a problem
with the aircraft, yet you fly the aircraft anyway, and that flight
exacerbates the previously existing problem, necessitating a repair before
the aircraft can returned to it's base, you will be responsible for costs
associated with that repair. As I said, the language in the rental agreement
is not the best in the world, but this is how that would be interpreted.

[Cub Driver]

>taking the
>plane to places far away for extended periods, and instead preferred
>that you just took day trippers.

A couple years ago I wanted to rent the Cub for three days to go to
the Sentimental Journey in Lock Haven. They had no problem with the
hours (I would have put on quite a few) but wouldn't let the plane go
overnight on a weekend in the summer, so as not to inconvenience
students and renters.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
>the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."

Good point. The original poster should insert "subsequently" and sign
the agreement.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Tony Cox]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > [...] you're supposed to remain with the plane
> > for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
> > repaired is no worse than it was when you took off.
>
> Who said anything about "what needs to be repaired is no worse than it was
> when you took off"?

I did, but only as an illustration as to how the clause could
be interpreted.

> The question is what happens when it becomes
> known to be unairworthy after arriving somewhere else.

Well, if it wasn't broken when you took off, the clause
hasn't anything to say on the matter. Otherwise, who knows?
The clause says nothing about 'airworthiness'. Don't take
off when things 'need repair' and it won't be an issue.

[Tony Cox]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the
plane
> > needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away
from
> > its home location..."
>
> I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the statement
> indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the
plane
> away from its home location".
>
> You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.
>
> > What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
> know
> > that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the
airplane
> > needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other than
> > it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"
>
> That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
> intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says.

This is why I say just ignore it. Three people, three different
interpretations.
It's unlikely to be enforceable, and a good reason why you *should*
get a lawyer involved in writing a contract.

Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

[Bill Denton]

You made the statement: "if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport
and found fuel running out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold
him to the rest of it" is not correct.

The wording in that section would only apply if the pilot knew there was a
fuel leak (or something similar or related) prior to flying the aircraft.

If the pilot was not aware of a fuel system or related problem prior to
taking off, he would not be liable under this section of the rental
agreement. However, I would imagine there would be other sections covering
this type of situation.



"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Hmm, reading Peter's post above dissecting the time order of the wording,
I
> guess I would want a clarification before renting. It looks to me as
though
> it was written so that a renter rolling the dice by flying away from the
> homebase with a known problem would be responsible. Peter is right
though,
> if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport and found fuel running
> out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold him to the rest of it.
>
> If the "being flown" in the first line was replace by "departing the home
> base" or "accepting the aircraft for flight" I would consider it
reasonable.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
plane."
<<

I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.

>>
It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
it won't apply to you.
<<

"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"

Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the vacuum
system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a plane
that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't. But now you're there, and the
lawyers eat you.

Run, don't walk.

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Todd Pattist]

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>You made the statement: "if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport
>and found fuel running out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold
>him to the rest of it" is not correct.
>

"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before
being flown, .. "

I come back from lunch at a distant airport and the aircraft
is leaking fuel. I've now determined it needs repair and I
haven't yet flown (home.)

" and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home
location,"

I've previously flown the plane to the "distant airport."

I agree with Peter - the wording seems to cover someone who
finds out at a remote location that he needs repair before
coming home. At best, it's ambiguous.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Robert]

Thanks to everyone for their interpretations. I think I'll just check out
some more FBO's .... I'm sure someone else has comparable rates without
these types of restrictions. ;)

Now if I could only afford my own plane.......

Robert

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
> <<
>
> I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.
>
> >>
> It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> it won't apply to you.
> <<
>
> "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"
>
> Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the vacuum
> system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a
plane
> that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't. But now you're there,
and the
> lawyers eat you.
>
> Run, don't walk.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bill Denton]

Actually, we have all been skipping a more relevant point and I didn't feel
like introducing it until now: How does anyone know what the pilot knew
before the flight?

If the pilot doesn't write up a problem and give the write up to the FBO
prior to departing, how could it be established that he knew about the
problem prior to take-off?

Of course, you could always put a clause in the rental agreement stating
that unless the pilot did specific write ups it would be assumed that he
knew about all of the defects. Weird language, I know, but it works!



"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the
> plane
> > > needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away
> from
> > > its home location..."
> >
> > I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the
statement
> > indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the
> plane
> > away from its home location".
> >
> > You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.
> >
> > > What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
> > know
> > > that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the
> airplane
> > > needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other
than
> > > it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"
> >
> > That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
> > intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says.
>
> This is why I say just ignore it. Three people, three different
> interpretations.
> It's unlikely to be enforceable, and a good reason why you *should*
> get a lawyer involved in writing a contract.
>
> Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
> the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??
>
>

[Bill Denton]

The lawyers would starve on this one!

This only applies if the pilot knew about the problem before taking off...

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
> <<
>
> I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.
>
> >>
> It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> it won't apply to you.
> <<
>
> "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"
>
> Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the vacuum
> system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a
plane
> that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't. But now you're there,
and the
> lawyers eat you.
>
> Run, don't walk.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Tony Cox]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
>
> Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the vacuum
> system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a
plane
> that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't.

Ok, I'm with you so far....

> But now you're there, and the
> lawyers eat you.

Why? On what basis?

[Tony Cox]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, we have all been skipping a more relevant point and I didn't
feel
> like introducing it until now: How does anyone know what the pilot knew
> before the flight?
>
> If the pilot doesn't write up a problem and give the write up to the FBO
> prior to departing, how could it be established that he knew about the
> problem prior to take-off?

Something a previous renter noted (not necessarily on a squark
sheet), but which a pilot should have noticed himself during a
preflight?

>
> Of course, you could always put a clause in the rental agreement stating
> that unless the pilot did specific write ups it would be assumed that he
> knew about all of the defects. Weird language, I know, but it works!

For the FBO perhaps. I'd not sign an agreement with that in it.

[Dave S]

They simply put in writing what has always been what I consider a
respectable idea.. If you leave the airplane "away" you are responsible
for getting the airplane back. Either you get the plane back, or you pay
someone to get it back.

The max cost is $1000 (which is 200 miles) which seems like a lot.. but
the truth is.. if you bring the plane back (which they paid to fix) then
you dont owe them anything. If it takes more than 3 days to fix the
plane, you dont owe them anything. I think "staying with the plane" is a
little excessive but rather you should be prepared to retrieve the plane
at your own cost and time expense within 3 days of leaving it "away".

The club I am with makes no such time stipulation, and states that you
are responsible for the cost of recovery.. If you fly it 5 hours away,
you can pay to have it flown the 5 hours back. Of course, maintenance is
pretty progressive so our planes usually arent down unexpectedly too much.

Dave

Robert wrote:

> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from the
> same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
> looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are old
> and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
> plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
> least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
> didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
> normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
> plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C airport),
> and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
> decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
> $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while it
> gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with a
> bill.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

[Dave S]

Have you considered the possibility of something failing AFTER you've
departed? Stranger things have happened. Everyone is assuming that the
pilot is departing in an unairworthy plane. Alternators can fail. Birds
can strike the wing or windshield. Quit reading more into this than
there is.

Dave

Bill Denton wrote:

> The lawyers would starve on this one!
>
> This only applies if the pilot knew about the problem before taking off...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
>>flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
>
> PIC
>
>>must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
>>repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
>>travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
>>leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
>
> for
>
>>the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
>
> the
>
>>plane."
>><<
>>
>>I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.
>>
>>
>>It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
>>a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
>>the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
>>it won't apply to you.
>><<
>>
>>"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"
>>
>>Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the vacuum
>>system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a
>
> plane
>
>>that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't. But now you're there,
>
> and the
>
>>lawyers eat you.
>>
>>Run, don't walk.
>>
>>Jose
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>
>
>

[Bill Denton]

Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you could
afford your own plane!


"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to everyone for their interpretations. I think I'll just check out
> some more FBO's .... I'm sure someone else has comparable rates without
> these types of restrictions. ;)
>
> Now if I could only afford my own plane.......
>
> Robert
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>
> > "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> > flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
> PIC
> > must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> > repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging,
food,
> > travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects
to
> > leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
> for
> > the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
> the
> > plane."
> > <<
> >
> > I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.
> >
> > >>
> > It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> > a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> > the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> > it won't apply to you.
> > <<
> >
> > "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"
> >
> > Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the
vacuum
> > system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to Kalamazoo) in a
> plane
> > that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't. But now you're there,
> and the
> > lawyers eat you.
> >
> > Run, don't walk.
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>
>

[Roger Long]

> Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you
could
> afford your own plane!
>

Yeah, but, if he bought his own plane, flew it somewhere and something
broke, he would have to stay with it for three days and pay all the costs of
repairing it, getting it back, transportation if he had to go back and
forth, and any other expenses that might come up. He wouldn't even have the
protection of the FBO limit on having to stay with the plane only three
days.

Think how unfair all that would be!

--
Roger Long

[Peter Duniho]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The problem is that you haven't the slightest idea what the intent of this
> section of the agreement is. It is saying that if you are aware of a
problem
> with the aircraft, yet you fly the aircraft anyway, and that flight
> exacerbates the previously existing problem, necessitating a repair before
> the aircraft can returned to it's base, you will be responsible for costs
> associated with that repair.

Your "between the lines" circuit appears to be working overtime.

I will see your initial misinterpretation (that the language only applies to
problems that existed prior to leaving home base), and raise you your new
misinterpretation: you are now claiming that this language specifically only
applies to situations where the problem actually got WORSE after you flew
the airplane?

Sheesh... that's about the most bizarrely, "constructive" interpretation of
a contract I've ever seen. You've managed to invent two new clauses where
there's no language in the contract whatsoever to suggest them.

> As I said, the language in the rental agreement
> is not the best in the world, but this is how that would be interpreted.

Obviously that's how it would be interpreted by at least one person.
However, there's no way it would be interpreted that way by anyone who
matters (that is, a renter, a lawyer, a judge, or a jury).

Pete

[Judah]

There was a discussion on the r.a.owning group recently that discussed a
situation in a flight club that was similar to the one that this FBO is
clearly trying to protect itself from...

There is one mistake in your example. You would be charged $1,000, not
$1,800, for retrieval. Whether or not it is fair depends on the full story
- was the repair scheduled to take 3 days? Longer? Shorter?

The way it is written now, it seems like if the repairs are expected to
take 5 days, you would still have to stay for 3 or be charged, which is
unreasonable. But if the repairs are expected to take 2 days, and you
decide you have to be home before then, quite frankly, you probably should
be charged.

The bottom line is it may not be unreasonable to expect that if you take a
plane out and it needs a repair, you are still responsible for getting the
plane back to the FBO after the repair has been completed.

I'm not sure why you need to stay with the plane, though. I think they are
trying to avoid the repair being completed after you leave, and you not
getting back there for 2 "wasted" days to bring it back... Or maybe they
are trying to say that if the repair will take more than 3 days, they will
take back responsibility. I could read it either way.

I would have worded it something like, "If repairs will take 3 days or
fewer, renter is responsible for returning the plane to the FBO within 24
hours of repair completion. If the renter cannot fly the plane back
himself, he will be charged for all time and expenses for the FBO to
recover the plane, to a maximum of $1000. If the repairs will take longer
than 3 days, FBO will recover the plane at its own cost. Either way, renter
is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food, travel expenses,
etc. should he be choose to remain with the plane while it is being
repaired."

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so there may be problems with the language
that I put up. But I think that's the general idea of what they are trying
to do. There also will be an issue if the FBO wants to send a pilot who is
not commercially rated to recover the plane...

A policy that forces you to "stay with the plane" seems less reasonable,
And the calculation for the cost of the retrieval that they have used seems
like it could go either way...

Maxing out at $1,000 may be to your favor, depending on rates and all. I
wonder if they have some sort of insurance that covers this situation, and
the deductible is $1,000. If you fly 350 miles away, and two instructors
fly out together in another 172 to pick up the plane, figure 6 hours round
trip for each instructor, 6 hours round trip for the extra plane, and 3
hours for the return flight home for your plane. At $40/hr instructor time,
and $100/hr plane time, you're talking about $1280, which quite frankly,
you probably should be fully responsible for...

In many ways, the policy seems fair. And if the FBO is responsible for the
maintenance of the planes, it may never really be a big issue... The
biggest inconvenience that I ever had for a repair was a gash in a tire
that I found on preflight at 4:30pm, and all maintenance guys at the field
were gone, so I had to wait until morning to get it changed. If a cylinder
blows, or there is some major electrical malfunction, I think it's gonna be
more than 3 days to fix... The biggest risk might be if you get caught at
4:30pm on a Friday and they won't work on it until Monday, or if they have
to order a part...

I suspect if you get the plane back as soon as possible after repairs are
done, whether or not you stayed with it in between or not, no one is going
to care.


"Robert" > wrote in
:

> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from
> the same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've
> been looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current
> FBO are old and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in
> a plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent
> from... at least until I took a look at their rental policies and
> procedures. I really didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it
> is "just me" or if it is a normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
> PIC must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is
> being repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own
> lodging, food, travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If
> the PIC elects to leave the plane during this three day repair period,
> you are responsible for the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO
> staff member to retreive the plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C
> airport), and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my
> own, and I decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay
> someone about $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for
> three days while it gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I
> would be responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave
> the plane somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging
> pilots to fly planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they
> don't get stuck with a bill.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
> [...]
> Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
> the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed with
it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The point
is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
control away from the home base.

Avoiding the take off doesn't get the renter out of that requirement of the
contract.

Pete

[Tony Cox]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > [...]
> > Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
> > the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??
>
> I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed
with
> it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The
point
> is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
> $1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
> control away from the home base.

Bah! This thread has surely gone on too long.

The language neither says nor implies anything of the sort. It says quite
plainly "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, ...". Anything after the comma doesn't apply if the condition isn't
met. To spell it out, if the PIC doesn't determine the plane needs repair,
you're not obliged to stay the 3 days, pay the $1000, have your nuts cut
off or anything else that happens to be specified AFTER THAT COMMA.

Actually, as Bill pointed out, how does anyone know what the PIC
knew? You could take off with 1/2 a wing hanging off & you *still*
wouldn't have to worry about this clause as long as you didn't decide
that the plane needed repair. As I said before, a pretty useless condition,
from the FBO's point of view - except that it's obviously scared at least
one person from doing business with them.

Surely you must be yanking my chain ;-)

[Tony Cox]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not sure why you need to stay with the plane, though. I think they are
> trying to avoid the repair being completed after you leave, and you not
> getting back there for 2 "wasted" days to bring it back... Or maybe they
> are trying to say that if the repair will take more than 3 days, they will
> take back responsibility. I could read it either way.

I read it that they want you to provide security. If you don't stay
with the plane for up to 3 days & someone steals the avionics,
you're on the line for up to $1000...;-)

[gatt]

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message

> > If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
> > you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.
>
> If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
> armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
> sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.

My initial thought was the same, but upon re-reading it, it seems to be
saying that if you take the plane to a remote location and THEN determine
something is wrong, you have to stay with the plane. 'Cause if the PIC
knew there was a problem before taking it out, well, he's got bigger issues
than the FBO policy. But what if you fly someplace and, say, the alternator
fails while you're gone? You certainly don't fly back, but the FBO doesn't
want you just abandoning the plane there.

Not sure it's a good policy, but I think that's what it means.

-c

[gatt]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message news:Unxmc.10069

> Well, if it wasn't broken when you took off, the clause
> hasn't anything to say on the matter. Otherwise, who knows?
> The clause says nothing about 'airworthiness'. Don't take
> off when things 'need repair' and it won't be an issue.

It could, because the problem could develop while you have the plane.

For example: Flat tire, alternator failure, fuel filter failure, XPDR,
etc... all kinds of things can go wrong between the time you depart from the
home base and the time you return.

-c

[Teacherjh]

>> The lawyers would starve on this one!

The town had one lawyer. He was starving. Another moved in and now they are
both doing a brisk business.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[gatt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you
could
> afford your own plane!

LOL!

[Teacherjh]

>>
> But now you're there, and the
> lawyers eat you.

Why? On what basis?
<<

Because you're tasty.

It's a figure of speech, but...You (would have) signed a contract stating you
would perform certain actions under certain circumstances. You are now in
those circumstances (through no fault of your own) and must perform. If you
choose not to, then the FBO can exact payment. If you refuse to pay, the FBO
can sue you or threaten to do so. Breach of contract.

Whether this is smart or not is irrelevant. They can.

So, you're in the hot seat, depending only on their kindness (and the kindness
of their legal advisor, the same one that drew up the contract to begin with)

As you can see, the contract has many ways to be interpreted. That's where
lawyers make money. And that money comes from you.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[gatt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message news:409a9de6$0$3023

> I didn't get that interpretation; that language comes directly from the
> rental agreement! And while the language may be a bit sloppy, the intent
is
> perfectly obvious. If the pilot knows something is wrong before he flies,
he
> would obviously have that information after he has flown.

Hey, guys, the best thing to do would be to ask the FBO owner to clarify
and, if necessary, have it put in writing.

No point in arguing about it for days if somebody could just pick up the
phone and ask the FBO to explain it. Would like to hear the explanation,
btw.

-c

[Teacherjh]

>>
The club I am with makes no such time stipulation, and states that you
are responsible for the cost of recovery..
<<

A club (as I understand the word) is different. You are all co-owners in some
sense. You (collectively) make the maitanance decisions.

An FBO is different.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Tony Cox]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message news:Unxmc.10069
>
> > Well, if it wasn't broken when you took off, the clause
> > hasn't anything to say on the matter. Otherwise, who knows?
> > The clause says nothing about 'airworthiness'. Don't take
> > off when things 'need repair' and it won't be an issue.
>
> It could, because the problem could develop while you have the plane.

But that would be after you've started flying it.

Another reason why this is a bad clause, a good advert (for
once) as to why a lawyer is useful (hah!), and why I'd argue
that it is so vague as to be unenforceable -- what, exactly,
does the phrase "before being flown" mean?

I've taken it to mean before you take off on your rental
jaunt. I can see now that some people are (quite reasonably)
interpreting this as taking off on each leg (apologies, Pete).

I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Peter]

Tony Cox wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
>>>the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??
>>
>>I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed
>
> with
>
>>it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The
>
> point
>
>>is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
>>$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
>>control away from the home base.
>
>
> Bah! This thread has surely gone on too long.
>
> The language neither says nor implies anything of the sort. It says quite
> plainly "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, ...". Anything after the comma doesn't apply if the condition isn't
> met.

Your interpretation appears to be that this clause only applies when the
pilot first decides whether to fly the plane away from the home airport.
But others, including myself, would consider it to apply equally before
any subsequent takeoffs - including one from a distant airport.
I.e. the pilot lands at Timbuktu, eats a sandwich and now comes back to
the plane. He does his preflight and discovers a serious problem that
"needs repair before being flown." Under the contract terms he must
now remain with the plane for up to 3 days while repairs are made or
be liable for up to $1000 of recovery costs.

In fact, I wouldn't consider this clause to have any practical
application on the initial takeoff from the home field since any
pilot who determines that repairs *need* to be done before flight
would not then fly before they are done. By flying he makes it clear
that he didn't determine the repairs to be *necessary* - even if they
may be prudent for safety, required by FARS, etc.

I'd recommend against accepting such a clause in a rental agreement.
The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
could lead to an unexpected breakdown. Therefore the renter who is
unlucky enough to have possession when the breakdown occurs should not
have to suffer undue financial hardship (he's probably already had his
day disrupted by not being able to continue his planned flight).

I also feel this clause could lead to renters taking slightly more risks
than they might otherwise to fly a marginal plane back to the home
airport.

[Bob Fry]

"gatt" > writes:

> But what if you fly someplace and, say, the alternator
> fails while you're gone? You certainly don't fly back,

Why not? If the return flight is a couple of hours, get the battery
charged up, have someone handprop or use up some battery to crank it,
take off, turn off all the electricals and fly it home. If you need
to enter controlled airspace turn things back on briefly.

[Gary Drescher]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> I've taken it to mean before you take off on your rental
> jaunt. I can see now that some people are (quite reasonably)
> interpreting this as taking off on each leg (apologies, Pete).
>
> I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
> the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
> repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
> quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.

It's not really a question of when you take off. "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair before being flown..." simply means "If the PIC
determines that the plane needs repair in order to be flown..." Thus, the
phrase "before being flown" is not superfluous, and does not refer to when
(or even if) the PIC flies the plane. You're interpreting the sentence to
mean "If the PIC, before flying the plane, determines that the plane needs
repair...". But it cannot gramatically mean that, because "before being
flown" is an adverbial clause that modifies the verb "needs"; it does not
modify the verb "determines", because the subject of that verb--the PIC--is
not what is being flown.

If the sentence read "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair
before the PIC flies the plane...", it would be ambiguous between the two
interpretations. But as actually written, it refers unambiguously to any
determination by the PIC that the plane is not airworthy, regardless of when
the determination occurs.

--Gary

[John Theune]

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

>>>
> "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location,
> the PIC must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane
> is being repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own
> lodging, food, travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If
> the PIC elects to leave the plane during this three day repair period,
> you are responsible for the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO
> staff member to retreive the plane."
> <<
>
> I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.
>
>>>
> It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
> a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
> the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
> it won't apply to you.
> <<
>
> "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"
>
> Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the
> vacuum system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to
> Kalamazoo) in a plane that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't.
> But now you're there, and the lawyers eat you.
>
> Run, don't walk.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>

My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and bring
it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your not on
the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't
want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short repair and
then they have to go get it.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> I'd recommend against accepting such a clause in a rental agreement.
> The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
> plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
> could lead to an unexpected breakdown. Therefore the renter who is
> unlucky enough to have possession when the breakdown occurs should not
> have to suffer undue financial hardship (he's probably already had his
> day disrupted by not being able to continue his planned flight).

I once got some free time in a FBO plane to bring an instructor up to where
another of their planes had gotten left due to a problem to bring it back
after repairs. They had originally sent another plane up there (with
another instructor) to pick up the renter.

> I also feel this clause could lead to renters taking slightly more risks
> than they might otherwise to fly a marginal plane back to the home
> airport.

They seem to be opening themselves up to some liability. If someone flew
back a plane that had a problem and had an accident, and claimed they felt
unduly pressured by that clause, I am sure an enterprising lawyer could work
that into a fat civil suit.

At the FBO where I helped out (I was a good customer and that's why I got
the opportunity) they always said if something was questionable to call them
and speak to a mechanic and they would always come out to get you if
something was in the least bit unsafe or you were unsure you could handle
the flight due to conditions.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
1...
> My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
> it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
> it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and bring
> it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your not on
> the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't
> want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short repair and
> then they have to go get it.

Reasonable?

It's not my plane. If something fails, I will hang around for a while, but
certainly not overnight. 3 days? Fuggetaboutit. Around here people have
jobs and work for a living and taking an unexpected 3 days off is out of the
question.

I would NEVER rent from such an outfit.

They are also inviting unsafe operation of their planes and if I saw someone
firsthand doing this I would report it to the nearest FSDO as well as filing
a NASA safety report.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
1...
> My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
> it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
> it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and bring
> it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your not on
> the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't
> want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short repair and
> then they have to go get it.

Reasonable?

It's not my plane. If something fails, I will hang around for a while, but
certainly not overnight. 3 days? Fuggetaboutit. Around here people have
jobs and work for a living and taking an unexpected 3 days off is out of the
question.

I would NEVER rent from such an outfit.

They are also inviting unsafe operation of their planes and if I saw someone
firsthand doing this I would report it to the nearest FSDO as well as filing
a NASA safety report.

[Judah]

I would think that if someone steals the avionics while it is in the
custody of the maintenance shop, they are responsible, not you.

And if the implication is that you blew a cylinder and the repair will
require 5 days, what's the point of staying 3?


"Tony Cox" > wrote in
link.net:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm not sure why you need to stay with the plane, though. I think they
>> are trying to avoid the repair being completed after you leave, and
>> you not getting back there for 2 "wasted" days to bring it back... Or
>> maybe they are trying to say that if the repair will take more than 3
>> days, they will take back responsibility. I could read it either way.
>
> I read it that they want you to provide security. If you don't stay
> with the plane for up to 3 days & someone steals the avionics,
> you're on the line for up to $1000...;-)
>
>
>

[Dave S]

Our "club" is a non-profit org. Thats where the ownership ends. ALL of
our aircraft are privately owned and leased back. The owners bear
maintenance costs with an A&P of their choosing. While other clubs may
differ, in this instance it might be more appropriate to consider our
club a "members only" rental outfit.

I agree that the club situation is not an "apples to apples" comparison
with regards to a traditional FBO.

Truth is, if there were other places that didnt have such a "draconian"
approach to staying with the plane on the same field, I would probably
drift away from a rental agreement such as this. BUT, if that place had
something special to offer (price, stellar condition, a specific model,
etc) that I sought out, then I would probably just agree and go.

This rental policy obviously hasnt put the school in question out of
business.

Dave

Teacherjh wrote:

> The club I am with makes no such time stipulation, and states that you
> are responsible for the cost of recovery..
> <<
>
> A club (as I understand the word) is different. You are all co-owners in some
> sense. You (collectively) make the maitanance decisions.
>
> An FBO is different.
>
> Jose
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tony Cox wrote:
>
> I read it that they want you to provide security. If you don't stay
> with the plane for up to 3 days & someone steals the avionics,
> you're on the line for up to $1000...;-)

They expect me to camp out in the plane with a gun?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[BTIZ]

sounds reasonable... but your math is off... I don't see how "the smaller of
$5/mile or $1000 comes up to an $1800 retrieve.. looks like the max cost for
them to retrieve would be $1000

BT

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from
the
> same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
> looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are
old
> and always down because something broke yet again.
>
> I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
> plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
> least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I
really
> didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
> normal policy with most FBO's.
>
> It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
> flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
> must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
> repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
> travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
> leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
> the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
> plane."
>
> So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C
airport),
> and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
> decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
> $1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while
it
> gets repaired.
>
> Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would
be
> responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
> somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
> planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with
a
> bill.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

[Roger Long]

> The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
> plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
> could lead to an unexpected breakdown.

The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot by
the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the aircraft
thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
and up. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical failure,
or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did these
things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while. If
someone got hurt, failure to have verified these things will be blood in the
water for the lawyers.

These are not rental cars. Your responsibility goes far beyond what 99% of
rental pilots live up to.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:10:54 -0700, "Robert" > wrote:

>I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from the
>same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
>looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are old
>and always down because something broke yet again.
>
>I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
>plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
>least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
>didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
>normal policy with most FBO's.
>
>It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
>flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
>must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
>repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
>travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
>leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
>the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
>plane."
>
>So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C airport),
>and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
>decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
>$1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while it
>gets repaired.
>
>Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would be
>responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
>somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
>planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with a
>bill.
>
>Robert
>

Every place I've ever rented from has always picked up the tab if "their"
plane breaks while I'm away. And, although it has not happened to me, I
know of times when the FBO has ferried the pilot back from where the a/c
broke.

There would have to be something pretty special about an a/c at this FBO
for me to be subjected to that kind of provision.


>

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Peter]

Roger Long wrote:

>>The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
>>plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
>>could lead to an unexpected breakdown.
>
>
> The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
> flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
> of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot by
> the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the aircraft
> thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
> and up.

None of which gives the renter any *control* over the quality of the
maintenance although in some cases he may decide to rent elsewhere.

The policy of burdening the unlucky renter who happens to have
possession of the plane when an unexpected breakdown occurs is
unfair to that individual and acts as an incentive for flying
a plane that may be in marginal condition. Better to have a
slightly higher rental rate and spread the costs of
such incidents over all renters.

[Gary Drescher]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
> flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
> of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot
by
> the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the
aircraft
> thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
> and up. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical
failure,
> or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did
these
> things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

[gatt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:CLBmc.43562

> > I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
> > the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
> > repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
> > quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.
>
> It's not really a question of when you take off. "If the PIC determines
that
> the plane needs repair before being flown..."

The fact that there's discussion over the interpretation demonstrates that
the policy is unclear, so the discussion itself must assume that the wording
itself might not clearly reflect the FBO's intent. Given that, I personally
would not rent one of these planes or try to determine what the policy means
further without asking the author of the contract to clarify the wording and
intent.

-c

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:v6Qmc.38494$IG1.2156146@attbi_s04...
> Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a
rental
> pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation
on
> the question?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/pc0009.html

Summary: the pilot, even a renter, is the final authority responsible for
ensuring airworthiness. The article, the September 2000 "Pilot Counsel"
column describes an FAA enforcement case where a renter was found at fault
for flying an unairworthy airplane, the annual inspection having been
expired at the time of the flight.

That said, things can break after the logbooks and airplane have been
inspected. Roger's statement regarding "These are not rental cars. Your
responsibility goes far beyond what 99% of rental pilots live up to" is only
true inasumuch as it applies to safety. And frankly, any motorist who does
not perform at least a cursory inspection of a rental car is just as
culpable for any mechanical difficulty that causes an accident as a renter
pilot would be for an airplane that wasn't airworthy.

None of that changes the fact that the *owner* of the airplane is the one
responsible for the costs related to maintenance and repairs. Yes, the
renter is obligated to ensure that the airplane is safe to fly. No, the
renter is NOT obligated to pay for repairs, or even any additional costs
over and above their normal rental costs that are related to maintenance
failures that happen away from the airplane's home base. Not even the cost
of the flight home, no more than the renter of a car would be responsible
for the transport of that car should it break down while in the care of that
renter.

Any pilot who willingly agrees to enter into an agreement that does obligate
them to be responsible had better have a darn good reason for doing so (as
someone else mentioned, maybe the quality or nature of the aircraft is so
great as to justify taking on that responsibility). Otherwise, they are a
fool.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...

> The fact that there's discussion over the interpretation demonstrates that
> the policy is unclear, so the discussion itself must assume that the
wording
> itself might not clearly reflect the FBO's intent.

You can always speculate that the authors of a contract meant something
other than what they actually wrote. But the passage here looks carefully
constructed and is grammatically unambiguous, so I don't see much doubt that
it means what it says. (In addition to the considerations I mentioned in my
last post, note the use of present tense--"the PIC determines" the need for
repair--followed by present perfect tense--"the PIC has flown" to a remote
location. That contrast clearly specifies that the determination occurs
*after* the flight away from the home base.)

> Given that, I personally would not rent one of these planes...
> without asking the author of the contract to clarify the wording and
> intent.

But my argument makes renting those planes even *more* ill-advised than if
there were some ambiguity, since the unambiguous interpretation is actually
the more onerous one.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
> flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
> of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot
by
> the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the
aircraft
> thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
> and up. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical
failure,
> or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did
these
> things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

[Roger Long]

Just to clarify. I didn't mean to imply any financial responsibility for
the maintenance. Only the determination that the aircraft is safe and
legal.

I can't believe the contract language that started this all was actually
intended to make the renter financially responsible for unforeseeable
breakdowns. If it really is, the Darwin effect should take care of that
FBO.

If the language was intended to be reasonable, the PIC carrying out his duty
under the FAR's to verify the airworthiness should uncover anything
foreseeable. If he calls up from East Podunk, says he is stuck because fuel
is pouring out of the wing, and it turns out there is a squawk in the
records reporting fuel stains or drip, he should pay the excess cost of the
FBO to get it back home and in service. He shouldn't have accepted the
aircraft in the first place. If the leak just started with no prior warning
or indication, the FBO should cover everything.

The situation I think this is really aimed at is the one like the place I
used to rent. Once you were checked out, you could just put your name on
the schedule. You might pick up the plane just after another pilot without
the shop having checked it out in the meantime. If the previous pilot had
squawked the hypothetical fuel leak above, and you decided to roll the dice,
it should be you not the FBO that pays if you lose.

If the FBO came to feel that they had to check out the plane between each
rental, cost for everybody would go up. This language, made less ambiguous,
might be a better alternative.

--
Roger Long

[John Harlow]

> Thanks to everyone for their interpretations. I think I'll just
> check out some more FBO's .... I'm sure someone else has comparable
> rates without these types of restrictions. ;)
>
> Now if I could only afford my own plane.......

What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

[Robert]

I called and asked the FBO what they meant by this clause. They said it
meant that, regardless of fault, if something goes wrong with the plane
while I am renting it and I'm away from the home field, I am supposed to
stay with the plane for three days at my own cost, or come home and go back
to fly it home if the repairs take 3 days or less, or have them retrieve the
plane for me at the cost we have discussed.

Now, I have no problem staying with the plane or retrieving it after repairs
if I am the person that broke something. I broke it, I should pay to fix it
and fly it home.

But if the radios die because the FBO hasn't replaced them in 20 years, or a
belt breaks because the FBO decided not to replace it on the 100-hour even
though it was cracked, or the alternator dies suddenly (IE... situations
where I clearly didn't break anything and just happen to be the unlucky
renter to have a broken plane while out on a cross country), I can not
fathom having to pay to retrieve the plane. That should be a cost for the
FBO to eat, since it was their maintenance that didn't find the problem to
begin with. And once they eat the cost a few times, you can bet the
maintenance of the planes would improve. The radio would be replaced more
regularly, etc.

Could you imagine renting a car from Avis, and half way through your trip
having the starter on the car die? You call Avis, and they tell you that
according to their contract it's your responsibility to retrieve the car
after the repair or they will charge you $1,000 to get it even though it was
their poor maintenance (or Murphy's law) that broke the car in the first
place?

I'm sure you'd go crazy. And so would I regardless of whether it was a
plane or a car.

Robert


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
news:409a9de6$0$3023
>
> > I didn't get that interpretation; that language comes directly from the
> > rental agreement! And while the language may be a bit sloppy, the intent
> is
> > perfectly obvious. If the pilot knows something is wrong before he
flies,
> he
> > would obviously have that information after he has flown.
>
> Hey, guys, the best thing to do would be to ask the FBO owner to clarify
> and, if necessary, have it put in writing.
>
> No point in arguing about it for days if somebody could just pick up the
> phone and ask the FBO to explain it. Would like to hear the explanation,
> btw.
>
> -c
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

Well, the last time mine broke away from home, I rented a car and kept on going. Came
back and picked it up a week later.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > Now if I could only afford my own plane.......
>
> What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

You can do whatever you want. You can leave it there a week before even
calling a mechanic; you can just find a way home and deal with it whenever
you want. $5 a mile? Hire a plane and CFI from another FBO to get you
there cheaper. This is a rip-off, plain and simple. If every FBO did that
and I didn't own a plane I would give up flying before renting under such
terms.

How esle could they "have" you? I wouldn't trust those guys in the least.
I have yet to see a contract with ONE onerous clause. Either there are none
or there are a whole bunch in there, sometimes hidden.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Robert > wrote:
>That should be a cost for the
>FBO to eat, since it was their maintenance that didn't find the problem to
>begin with. And once they eat the cost a few times, you can bet the
>maintenance of the planes would improve. The radio would be replaced more
>regularly, etc.

Or they'd go out of business or charge $20/hr more for the plane.
They probably already lose money on trip rentals. I'm convinced
that most FBOs only do it at all because it would be hard to sell
people on flight training if they knew up front they couldn't fly
beyond the hundred dollar hamburger.

This $1000 thing is psycological anyway. What if it was a club with
a non-refundable $1000 buy-in? No one would call that "unfair". If
you fly 100 hours a year the total rental on a 172 could vary by more
than $1000 easily! No one says the $85/hr 172 is unfair when compared
to the $75/hr 172. Heck, you didn't even say what the rate was! That
could dwarf this $1000 risk. I paid $2600 for insurance this year and
they won't do a damn thing for me if I break an alternator away from
home.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Teacherjh]

>>
What if it was a club with
a non-refundable $1000 buy-in?
<<

An FBO exists to make money FOR THEM. A club does not. As a member of a club,
YOU get to determine policy.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Judah]

John Theune > wrote in
1:

> (Teacherjh) wrote in
> :
>
> My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
> it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
> it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and
> bring it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your
> not on the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
> They don't want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short
> repair and then they have to go get it.

It does not mention how long the repair is scheduled to take, implying to me
that regardless of whether the plane is scheduled to require 2 weeks to
repair, the renter still has to stay with it for 3 days. That is an unfair
policy.

Also, I agree with Peter - 3 days is a bit excessive. Overnight might be
appropriate...

[Judah]

Hi Peter,
Do the math. Using HPN FBO rates, the cost for to hire a plane and a CFI
round trip to come "save" you works out to pretty close to $5/mi...


But I do agree - they should put in actual cost recovery. Not a flat
rate. If you get stuck in Bridgeport and the CFI can rent a one-way car
for $40 to get there?


"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in
.net:

>
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Now if I could only afford my own plane.......
>>
>> What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own
>> plane?
>
> You can do whatever you want. You can leave it there a week before
> even calling a mechanic; you can just find a way home and deal with it
> whenever you want. $5 a mile? Hire a plane and CFI from another FBO
> to get you there cheaper. This is a rip-off, plain and simple. If
> every FBO did that and I didn't own a plane I would give up flying
> before renting under such terms.
>
> How esle could they "have" you? I wouldn't trust those guys in the
> least. I have yet to see a contract with ONE onerous clause. Either
> there are none or there are a whole bunch in there, sometimes hidden.
>
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Peter,
> Do the math. Using HPN FBO rates, the cost for to hire a plane and a CFI
> round trip to come "save" you works out to pretty close to $5/mi...
>


Arrrgggghhhh. "HPN, doing their part to show that Europe is NOT the most
expensive location for aviation..."

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
>
> >>If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
> >>you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.
> >
> > If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
> > armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
> > sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.
>
> That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
> badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a
U/S
> ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
> violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
>

What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?

[Judah]

Hahaha.

Could be worse - could be TEB!


"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in
.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi Peter,
>> Do the math. Using HPN FBO rates, the cost for to hire a plane and a
>> CFI
>> round trip to come "save" you works out to pretty close to $5/mi...
>>
>
>
> Arrrgggghhhh. "HPN, doing their part to show that Europe is NOT the
> most expensive location for aviation..."
>
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)" >
wrote in message ...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
> > That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
> > badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a
> U/S
> > ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or
a
> > violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).
> >
>
> What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?
>


What COLOR duct tape?

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)" >
> wrote in message ...
> >
> > "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> > le.rogers.com...
> > > That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with
a
> > > badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with
a
> > U/S
> > > ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material
or
> a
> > > violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).
> > >
> >
> > What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?
> >
>
>
> What COLOR duct tape?
>
>

Gray of course!

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)" >
wrote in message ...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)"
>
> > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> > > le.rogers.com...
> > > > That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane
with
> a
> > > > badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one
with
> a
> > > U/S
> > > > ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material
> or
> > a
> > > > violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).
> > > >
> > >
> > > What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?
> > >
> >
> >
> > What COLOR duct tape?
> >
> >
>
> Gray of course!
>

Then you're cleared to go. I was just worried about those "designer" color
tapes.

[Big John]

DWD

I taped the tail back together on a 0-1 (Bird Dog) and we flew the
bird back from a Special Forces Camp to Home Plate in 1968.

Great stuff. Wouldn't be without it.

Big John


On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The
Myth, The Legend\)" > wrote:

>
>"David Megginson" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
>> Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
>>
>> >>If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
>> >>you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.
>> >
>> > If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
>> > armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
>> > sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.
>>
>> That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
>> badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a
>U/S
>> ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
>> violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>
>What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:56:10 -0700, Peter wrote:

>
> I'd recommend against accepting such a clause in a rental agreement.
> The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
> plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
> could lead to an unexpected breakdown. Therefore the renter who is
> unlucky enough to have possession when the breakdown occurs should not
> have to suffer undue financial hardship (he's probably already had his
> day disrupted by not being able to continue his planned flight).
>
> I also feel this clause could lead to renters taking slightly more risks
> than they might otherwise to fly a marginal plane back to the home
> airport.

Can you imagine a rental car company with such a policy? If Hertz told me
such a thing, I'd laugh in their face. I can understand something like a
24-hour window, just so pilots don't drop their plane off in the middle of
nowhere, every other day. But three days? Come on, that's not
reasonable. Even if the duration is deemed to be reasonable, the wording
is ambigious at best. This may leave the renter unreasonably exposed to
liabilty that the FBO should be covering. The FBO should be charging
rates to account for such problems, when and if they occur. Furthermore,
the language needs to be more explicate so as to detail problems and
schedules which are except (engine failure over weekends or holidays, etc).

As is, I know I sure wouldn't sign such a thing.

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 07 May 2004 08:12:00 -0700, Peter wrote:

> Roger Long wrote:
>
>>>The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
>>>plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
>>>could lead to an unexpected breakdown.
>>
>>
>> The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
>> flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
>> of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot by
>> the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the aircraft
>> thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
>> and up.
>
> None of which gives the renter any *control* over the quality of the
> maintenance although in some cases he may decide to rent elsewhere.
>
> The policy of burdening the unlucky renter who happens to have
> possession of the plane when an unexpected breakdown occurs is
> unfair to that individual and acts as an incentive for flying
> a plane that may be in marginal condition. Better to have a
> slightly higher rental rate and spread the costs of
> such incidents over all renters.

I agree. I would think, should an accident occur, the FBO is greatly
increasing their liability. I can easily see an attourney tearing them
apart on that basis.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:37:36 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

>> Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you
> could
>> afford your own plane!
>>
>
> Yeah, but, if he bought his own plane, flew it somewhere and something
> broke, he would have to stay with it for three days and pay all the costs of
> repairing it, getting it back, transportation if he had to go back and
> forth, and any other expenses that might come up. He wouldn't even have the
> protection of the FBO limit on having to stay with the plane only three
> days.
>
> Think how unfair all that would be!

I can't fathom that you stated this. It's not the same. There is a
difference between being owner and responsible for it and being owner and
forcing your responsibility onto someone else.