Club Management Issue

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

"John Galban" wrote in message
om

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.


Where can I read these cases?

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

"John T" wrote:

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.


Where can I read these cases?

Search he

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

Here are two on this subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4306.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

Also, you might look at:

Administrator v. Reimer , 3 NTSB 2306 (1980),





Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

John T wrote:

Where can I read these cases?

Back issues of AOPA Pilot. John Yodice's column. Available online to members.

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

On 25 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

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.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

Peter Clark wrote in message . ..

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

The only pilot I've heard dinged for accepting flight time for
compensation was a guy hauling skydivers for no pay, in someone else's
aircraft. Basically, he was time-building by logging hours in his
logbook that he would have otherwise had to pay for by renting an
aircraft. He was also conducting a commercial operation at the time,
but that's a seperate issue.

In this case, Mark owns his own aircraft (see original post). If
Mark pays for the costs of the flight, who is compensating him with
flight time? The answer is no one. If you pay for the entire cost
of the flight, you have a much greater latitude on the types of
flights you can make.

If my brother needs a ride to an airport 200 miles away (for
whatever reason), he just calls me, we hop in my plane and I drop him
off. No problem. Now if I want to share any of the costs of that
flight, the FAA man would definitely be interested. I had no reason
to fly to that airport other than to drop off my bro. If I want to
start collecting money for that sort of thing, I begin to look a lot
like a Part 135 air taxi, rather than a private pilot. Same flight,
with the only difference being that money (compensation) changed
hands. Where private vs. commercial flying is concerned, the FAA has
spelled out pretty clearly what the exceptions are in the regs
(although IMHO, there are still some fuzzy areas).

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

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued
this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return,
right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time,
not
ground time while awaiting repairs?


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.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport ) wrote:

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent
on the return flight?

That is what I was saying. However, upon reflection, I would like to
retract that statement.

It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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.


---
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

"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