Club Management Issue

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
k.net...
It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.

As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
when
the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But it's still
the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so that other
people
can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club members to come get
the
plane.

Actually, policies vary according to FBO and club. The club I did the most
renting from had a very explicit policy that weather-related delays or
cancellations would not incur additional fees (such as overnight tie-down,
daily minimums, etc.) Just as it's in the FBO's or club's interest to not
encourage a pilot to fly an unairworthy airplane, it is in their interest to
not encourage a pilot to fly in poor weather.

Now, it's true that if the pilot just left the plane there and took
alternative transportation home, leaving the plane for someone else to pick
up, the pilot would have to pay for those costs. But that's a different
situation from an unairworthy airplane. The FBO or club don't warrant the
weather and weather-related delays are a normal part of all flying, but they
do warrant the airworthiness of the airplane.

A renter should not be expected to sit around and wait for an airplane to be
repaired just so that the FBO or club who warranted the airworthiness of the
airplane in the first place can avoid additional expenses retrieving the
airplane. If the renter is willing to do so, they should expect their
expenses to be covered (hotel, meals, cab fare, etc.) by the owner of the
airplane, up to whatever the owner of the airplane would have spent anyway
(whether by paying for overtime service, or sending someone else to get the
airplane).

Maintenance and airworthiness *ought* to be the number one priority for any
FBO or club. Above all else, they should ensure that renters are not
expected to help cover their costs when something breaks. After all, how do
they establish and maintain trust with their customers otherwise? I
certainly wouldn't rent an airplane from an operation where I ran the risk
of having to pay for their errors.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
purpose".


That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs. Where else should I be looking? Is there a legal
counsel ruling on this subject I should read?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That
section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs.

The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and 61.113
doesn't apply.

Pete

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message


They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.


Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Realizing we're talking about the FAA, that still doesn't pass the "common
sense" rule. I see this as no different than offering to pay a friend
the cost (or, in this case, half the cost) of driving me to the plane
instead of flying.

The FAA is drawing a distinction between private pilots and pilots for hire,
but accepting pro rata share of flight costs to fly a fellow pilot to his
stranded plane does not seem to me to be a commercial exercise in and of
itself.

However, I remain open to the idea that my interpretation of the reg is
incorrect. Can you point me to another interpretation or legal ruling that
demonstrates that Mark cannot accept even pro rata payment for the outbound
leg of this flight?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

I read that as "privileges and limitations of a private pilot" - not "when a
private pilot may accept money".

Again, I'm open to the idea that I'm looking in the wrong place, but this is
the only section I know of that describes what a private pilot may and may
not do with his certificate.
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.


I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

It would be fair in my view to charge him the hours for the return trip only
if you deducted the cost of his other transportation home.

Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for diddly
unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.

You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires, etc. and
you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually caused by loose
nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a customer ought to expect
from a vendor.





"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
broke.


Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
their fault the plane broke.

While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This
does
not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.

Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the
club
covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in
charging
him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for
the
plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.


I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

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

The OP stated "On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
we'll call 'Mark'". I recall reading recently where the FAA considered a favor as
compensation. Maybe it was AOPA's pilot counsel column or Avweb. In any event, the
wording of this statement shows a clear benefit to Mark.

John Galban wrote:

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

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

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Dude" wrote in message


Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for
diddly unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.

You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires,
etc. and you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually
caused by loose nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a
customer ought to expect from a vendor.


If the relationship between the club and the pilot is one of vendor and
customer, then I generally agree with you. However, the equation may change
depending on the finances of the club (IOW, how expenses are handled) and
the membership agreement.

In my current club, each member owns an equal share of the planes. In my
last "club", I was nothing more than a privileged renter. The difference
between the two relationships highlights the differences in perspective than
can be applied to the OP's question.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________