Rent plane from another private pilot?

[GEG]

I'm about 15 flight hours along in flight training.
My buddy is about 30 hours along and rounding the bend.

He's going to buy a plane - just part of his overall goal.

So here's a question:

(Let's assume I get a my PPL and checkout in the plane
and everything is cool .. .)

If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
Or is that considered "commercial" operations?

I would certainly want to get my own insurance.
And I'm sure he'd want to be covered appropriately.

Can anyone help on that matter?
Should we talk to AOPA?

Thanks!

[Bob Gardner]

Talking to the AOPA is always a wise decision. The key in this situation is
insurance. This can be a deal-killer. Your buddy's insurance coverage is
paramount, but it won't afford you much, if any, coverage. You need your own
policy, and the insurer should be told about the arrangement.

Bob Gardner

"GEG" > wrote in message
...
> I'm about 15 flight hours along in flight training.
> My buddy is about 30 hours along and rounding the bend.
>
> He's going to buy a plane - just part of his overall goal.
>
> So here's a question:
>
> (Let's assume I get a my PPL and checkout in the plane
> and everything is cool .. .)
>
> If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
> Or is that considered "commercial" operations?
>
> I would certainly want to get my own insurance.
> And I'm sure he'd want to be covered appropriately.
>
> Can anyone help on that matter?
> Should we talk to AOPA?
>
> Thanks!

[John Galban]

GEG wrote:
>
> If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
> Or is that considered "commercial" operations?
>

It's all in the insurance. If you're really renting from him (i.e.
paying x $s per hour) the insurance company will likely want to sell
him a commercial policy, rather than the business/pleasure policy he
has now. Once they mention the price, that'll probably kill the deal.


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

[jsmith]

Ask to be added to your friends insurance as a named insured and pay the
difference in the premium.

[John Galban]

jsmith wrote:
> Ask to be added to your friends insurance as a named insured and pay the
> difference in the premium.

You can do that, but if the insurance company finds out he's actually
renting the plane from the owner, they probably wouldn't go for it on a
business/pleasure policy.

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

[Chris G.]

I would definitely give AOPA a call because, by RENTING the plane, the
owner has just likely turned into a business. By RENTING the plane, the
owner will now have to comply with the regs that FBO's use, including
100 hr inspections. This can be considered a grey area, but the call to
AOPA is free (so why not?). The (potential) cost of NOT calling AOPA is
very high for all involved.

Chris


John Galban wrote:
>
> jsmith wrote:
>
>>Ask to be added to your friends insurance as a named insured and pay the
>>difference in the premium.
>
>
> You can do that, but if the insurance company finds out he's actually
> renting the plane from the owner, they probably wouldn't go for it on a
> business/pleasure policy.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[Sylvain]

John Galban wrote:

> You can do that, but if the insurance company finds out he's actually
> renting the plane from the owner, they probably wouldn't go for it on a
> business/pleasure policy.

what about buying a share? (would it have to be 50% or could the
friend get away with selling a smaller share?)

--Sylvain (just curious)

[Robert M. Gary]

My policy specifically says that I cannot rent to named pilots. I guess
they consider "renting" to be commercial. However, more specific to the
original poster, he can buy his own fuel and even help out when it
comes time for maintenance. I think the word "renting" set off some
alarms within the newsgroup. However, if you actually talked to the
agent about specifically waht you want to do, I'd be it wouldn't really
be considered "renting".

Also, as a side note, do **not** be mis-lead by talks of "open pilot
clauses". All policies appear to prevent coverage when pilots flying
meet the open pilot requirements but have regular access to the plane.
Open pilot is really just for an occasional once-in-awhile thing. My
agent says that most insurance companies will not consider someone to
be "casual use" if they have their own keys. Going by your friends
house and gettnig the keys each time is probably the only way to be
considered "casual".

-Robert

[John Galban]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> Also, as a side note, do **not** be mis-lead by talks of "open pilot
> clauses". All policies appear to prevent coverage when pilots flying
> meet the open pilot requirements but have regular access to the plane.
> Open pilot is really just for an occasional once-in-awhile thing. My
> agent says that most insurance companies will not consider someone to
> be "casual use" if they have their own keys. Going by your friends
> house and gettnig the keys each time is probably the only way to be
> considered "casual".

Another misconception about "open pilot" coverage is that the "open
pilot" is covered. That's not generally the case. Under most open
pilot clauses, the owner is covered for damage and liablility caused by
the open pilot, but the pilot himself is on his own. If you fly an
aircraft under an open pilot clause, you'd better have a policy that
covers you.

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

[John Galban]

Sylvain wrote:

>
> what about buying a share? (would it have to be 50% or could the
> friend get away with selling a smaller share?)
>
Can't comment about whether it would have to be 50% or not, but if
both of them were co-owners, then they could get away with a standard
business/pleasure policy. The main problem the OP had was that he
specifically said he wanted to rent the plane. Rental immediately
sends the policy cost skyrocketing.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
GEG > wrote:

> If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
> Or is that considered "commercial" operations?

It's a commercial operation (e.g., 100hr inspections required).
But, yes you can rent from him (subject to insurance restrictions).
My Avemco policy used to specifically allow me to rent to up to 3
named pilots. I don't know if they still offer that since I no longer
have the named pilots on my policy.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Helen Woods]

I rented mine to a friend for a month. According to the AOPA Q&A folks
I talked to, no, the FAA does not consider it a commercial operation
becuase your buddy isn't "holding out" ie. advertising and offering to
rent it to anybody. It's considered just a deal between two buddies.

I had an insurance policy under AOPA that would allow such a thing, but
as posted here, it really depends upon who insures it. The policy
called it "limited rental," which again means that they recognized money
was changing hands but that this wasn't a comercial operation. It added
10% on to my insurance premiums which my friend covered as part of the deal.

On other thing. My insurance does have an "open pilot clause" and also
lets me add two other higher time pilots at no cost as also mentioned in
the posts. However, my insurance won't let people taking advantage of
these items pay for anything but fuel and oil. The "limited rental"
add-on is required for me to charge a maintenance fee.

Also, I've known of pilots who got around this insurance problem by
making a buddy a $1 owner of the plane. If you are listed as an owner,
you can fork in whatever amount of money you want in airplane upkeep
without any questions from the insurance folks.

Helen

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm not sure what "generally" means but subrigation is very much over
reported.

[David Cartwright]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> I've been through this before. First, find out if your
> buddy can get an "open pilot" clause. He'll be covered for
> anyone who meets the experience requirements of that clause.
> They are getting harder to get, so if he doesn't have open
> pilot, he can get your name put on his policy.

As you don't yet have your licence, it's fair to assume you're
inexperienced. Unless your friend wants to pay vast amounts for "any pilot"
insurance, it's definitely going to be cheaper to have you as a "named
pilot" on the policy.

As a guide, a friend of mine looked into getting an "any pilot" clause in
his insurance, and the only way to keep the cost sensible was to have a
minimum experience requirement of 200 hours.

D.

[Dave Butler]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> GEG > wrote:
>
>
>>If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
>>Or is that considered "commercial" operations?
>
>
> It's a commercial operation (e.g., 100hr inspections required).

No, it's not, and 100 hour inspections are not required.

> But, yes you can rent from him (subject to insurance restrictions).
> My Avemco policy used to specifically allow me to rent to up to 3
> named pilots. I don't know if they still offer that since I no longer
> have the named pilots on my policy.

[OtisWinslow]

I've been in a situation where I've let someone else use my
plane for several weeks. I had them added to the policy
as another named insured. This would be the first place
to start and he should ask his insurance company.


"GEG" > wrote in message
...
> I'm about 15 flight hours along in flight training.
> My buddy is about 30 hours along and rounding the bend.
>
> He's going to buy a plane - just part of his overall goal.
>
> So here's a question:
>
> (Let's assume I get a my PPL and checkout in the plane
> and everything is cool .. .)
>
> If he owns a plane, can I rent from him?
> Or is that considered "commercial" operations?
>
> I would certainly want to get my own insurance.
> And I'm sure he'd want to be covered appropriately.
>
> Can anyone help on that matter?
> Should we talk to AOPA?
>
> Thanks!

[John Galban]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm not sure what "generally" means but subrigation is very much over
> reported.

"Generally" means in every insurance contract I've had over the last
15 yrs. with most of the available underwriters. I can't speak for
every underwriter or individual policy. You have to read your own to
be sure.

I was not referring to subrogation. I was referring to the fact
that the insurance on the plane covers the owner for damage and
liablility caused by the open pilot. It does not cover the open pilot.

A quick example would be that you borrow your friend's plane under
the open pilot clause and crash it into a house. The homeowner sues
you (the open pilot) and the owner of the airplane. The insurance
company will cover the pilot and pay out, or defend him if necessary.
You (the open pilot) are on your own.

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

[John Galban]

John Galban wrote:
> The insurance
> company will cover the pilot and pay out, or defend him if necessary.
> You (the open pilot) are on your own.

Sorry, that should have read "the insurance company will cover the
owner...

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

[[email protected]]

: I was not referring to subrogation. I was referring to the fact
: that the insurance on the plane covers the owner for damage and
: liablility caused by the open pilot. It does not cover the open pilot.

: A quick example would be that you borrow your friend's plane under
: the open pilot clause and crash it into a house. The homeowner sues
: you (the open pilot) and the owner of the airplane. The insurance
: company will cover the pilot and pay out, or defend him if necessary.
: You (the open pilot) are on your own.

Another example, as I understand it, would be suppose you borrow the plane
under the open pilot clause and do something horribly stupid... taxi into a light pole
for instance. The insurance company will cover the aircraft and owner, but may go
after you for the damage. At least that's what I was told.... basically means
"open-pilot clause" isn't a good way to fly a plane.

-Cory

--

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

[Bob Noel]

In article <1118756796.487014@sj-nntpcache-3>, Dave Butler > wrote:

> > It's a commercial operation (e.g., 100hr inspections required).
>
> No, it's not, and 100 hour inspections are not required.

oops. my mistake. 100 hour inspections are not necessarily required.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Robert M. Gary]

The problem with AOPA though is that they only represent one insurance
company. Different insurance underwriters work very differently in some
of these areas. I'd rather go to a good aviation insurance broker.

[Robert M. Gary]

Remember "open pilot" is only for casual use. If the insurance company
finds out you are flying the plane on a regular basis there will be no
coverage. You must be named.

[Morgans]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote

> The
> real risk is that the insurance company will settle, then go
> after the open pilot for their losses. That's why IMHO,
> subrogation is a bigger issue here.

Even after reading the definition in the dictionary, I'm not clear on how
subrogation is working in this instance. Could you explain a little more on
the implications, of what is being "assumed", or whatever?
--
Jim in NC

[John Galban]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> This is also true, but from a practical matter, the attorney
> handling the case will know it's far easier to get money out
> of the insurance company than the uninsured pilot defending
> his assets.

That's true if you make the assumption that the open pilot has no
assets. I know a few P.I. attornies and they tell me that they will go
after anyone they can who has any assets and is remotely involved in
the case. It's not an either/or situation. The plaintiffs attorney
may very well go for the insurance AND whatever assets the open pilot
owns. If the open pilot was truly at fault, there's no reason why they
wouldn't.

>The insurance company is obligated to defend.
> If they win, the open pilot is safe. If they lose, they
> pay.

This is why I posted in the first place. The insurance company is
NOT obligated to defend the open pilot. Why do you think that the
insurance company representing the owner will automatically be
representing the open pilot? It doesn't work that way in real life.
As a matter of fact, the insurance company's lawyer will probably
attempt to place most of the burden of responsibility on the open
pilot, rather than their client (the owner).

>It's seldom that anyone goes after more than the
> insured amount. If they do, the owner is at risk too. The
> real risk is that the insurance company will settle, then go
> after the open pilot for their losses. That's why IMHO,
> subrogation is a bigger issue here.

I disagree. The open pilot now has two things to worry about. 1)
His assets are at risk from the plaintiff. (He was, after all, pilot in
command of the accident aircraft) 2) If there are any assets left over
after the plaintiff's attorneys are through with him, then whatever he
has left is at risk if the ins. co. decides on subrogation. As I
implied in my original post, if you're an open pilot without your own
policy, you're on your own.

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