![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm surprised no one has chimed in on "Mark" asking for reimbursement of fuel.
Unless he was flying under part 135, the best he could do is ask for no more than the passenger's pro-rata share of the fuel, oil, aircraft rental fee (none since it was his plane) and direct airport expenses for portion of the flight the passengers flew. Even at that, I think he fails the common purpose clause, since he wasn't have been flying to that airport anyway. The FAA takes a very dim view of this type of operation, and would likely not allow ANY reimbursement to "Mark" in this case. Getting caught by the FAA in what they consider a for hire operation would cost Mark far more than the $175 fuel bill. Of course, if this was a part 135 flight, this wouldn't apply but then I think in that case the billing would have been discussed up front too. Regarding the maintenance bill and the costs related to the airplane being stranded, those should be paid by the aircraft owner since maintenance is his responsibility. He doesn't want to create a climate that encourages renters to attempt to return in an unairworthy (or marginally airworthy) aircraft to save added expenses. The remaining expense could go either way, although if the club or renter pay for the return trip on the airplane, the owner should pay for the renter's travel expenses for his return. Of course, this is just my opinion. Geoffrey Barnes wrote: First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am trying to gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with something like it. One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases from the two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight. Anyway, "Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday night. There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on Sunday night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home, leaving the 182 behind. On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote airport in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of the flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was willing to help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he would like to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So instead, one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft -- agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things squared away. Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty well. The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his instrument lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in the 182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting everything done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific rules about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club rule book rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near future. But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along. There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners. Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would your club or FBO do in this situation? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004 -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
September issue of Afterburner now on line | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:13 PM |