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

Mike
MU-2


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

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

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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively
few!
All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:

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

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

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

Mike
MU-2


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

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

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

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

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

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


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