Rental policy

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

"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

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.

"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

"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

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

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/

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)

"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

"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??