Rental policy

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot
by
the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the
aircraft
thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
and up. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical
failure,
or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did
these
things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:CLBmc.43562

I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.

It's not really a question of when you take off. "If the PIC determines
that
the plane needs repair before being flown..."

The fact that there's discussion over the interpretation demonstrates that
the policy is unclear, so the discussion itself must assume that the wording
itself might not clearly reflect the FBO's intent. Given that, I personally
would not rent one of these planes or try to determine what the policy means
further without asking the author of the contract to clarify the wording and
intent.

-c

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:v6Qmc.38494$IG1.2156146@attbi_s04...
Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a
rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation
on
the question?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...00/pc0009.html

Summary: the pilot, even a renter, is the final authority responsible for
ensuring airworthiness. The article, the September 2000 "Pilot Counsel"
column describes an FAA enforcement case where a renter was found at fault
for flying an unairworthy airplane, the annual inspection having been
expired at the time of the flight.

That said, things can break after the logbooks and airplane have been
inspected. Roger's statement regarding "These are not rental cars. Your
responsibility goes far beyond what 99% of rental pilots live up to" is only
true inasumuch as it applies to safety. And frankly, any motorist who does
not perform at least a cursory inspection of a rental car is just as
culpable for any mechanical difficulty that causes an accident as a renter
pilot would be for an airplane that wasn't airworthy.

None of that changes the fact that the *owner* of the airplane is the one
responsible for the costs related to maintenance and repairs. Yes, the
renter is obligated to ensure that the airplane is safe to fly. No, the
renter is NOT obligated to pay for repairs, or even any additional costs
over and above their normal rental costs that are related to maintenance
failures that happen away from the airplane's home base. Not even the cost
of the flight home, no more than the renter of a car would be responsible
for the transport of that car should it break down while in the care of that
renter.

Any pilot who willingly agrees to enter into an agreement that does obligate
them to be responsible had better have a darn good reason for doing so (as
someone else mentioned, maybe the quality or nature of the aircraft is so
great as to justify taking on that responsibility). Otherwise, they are a
fool.

Pete

"gatt" wrote in message
...

The fact that there's discussion over the interpretation demonstrates that
the policy is unclear, so the discussion itself must assume that the
wording
itself might not clearly reflect the FBO's intent.

You can always speculate that the authors of a contract meant something
other than what they actually wrote. But the passage here looks carefully
constructed and is grammatically unambiguous, so I don't see much doubt that
it means what it says. (In addition to the considerations I mentioned in my
last post, note the use of present tense--"the PIC determines" the need for
repair--followed by present perfect tense--"the PIC has flown" to a remote
location. That contrast clearly specifies that the determination occurs
*after* the flight away from the home base.)

Given that, I personally would not rent one of these planes...
without asking the author of the contract to clarify the wording and
intent.

But my argument makes renting those planes even *more* ill-advised than if
there were some ambiguity, since the unambiguous interpretation is actually
the more onerous one.

--Gary

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot
by
the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the
aircraft
thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
and up. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical
failure,
or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did
these
things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

Just to clarify. I didn't mean to imply any financial responsibility for
the maintenance. Only the determination that the aircraft is safe and
legal.

I can't believe the contract language that started this all was actually
intended to make the renter financially responsible for unforeseeable
breakdowns. If it really is, the Darwin effect should take care of that
FBO.

If the language was intended to be reasonable, the PIC carrying out his duty
under the FAR's to verify the airworthiness should uncover anything
foreseeable. If he calls up from East Podunk, says he is stuck because fuel
is pouring out of the wing, and it turns out there is a squawk in the
records reporting fuel stains or drip, he should pay the excess cost of the
FBO to get it back home and in service. He shouldn't have accepted the
aircraft in the first place. If the leak just started with no prior warning
or indication, the FBO should cover everything.

The situation I think this is really aimed at is the one like the place I
used to rent. Once you were checked out, you could just put your name on
the schedule. You might pick up the plane just after another pilot without
the shop having checked it out in the meantime. If the previous pilot had
squawked the hypothetical fuel leak above, and you decided to roll the dice,
it should be you not the FBO that pays if you lose.

If the FBO came to feel that they had to check out the plane between each
rental, cost for everybody would go up. This language, made less ambiguous,
might be a better alternative.

--
Roger Long

Thanks to everyone for their interpretations. I think I'll just
check out some more FBO's .... I'm sure someone else has comparable
rates without these types of restrictions.

Now if I could only afford my own plane.......

What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

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

John Harlow wrote:

What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

Well, the last time mine broke away from home, I rented a car and kept on going. Came
back and picked it up a week later.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
news
Now if I could only afford my own plane.......

What would you do differently in this scenario if you had your own plane?

You can do whatever you want. You can leave it there a week before even
calling a mechanic; you can just find a way home and deal with it whenever
you want. $5 a mile? Hire a plane and CFI from another FBO to get you
there cheaper. This is a rip-off, plain and simple. If every FBO did that
and I didn't own a plane I would give up flying before renting under such
terms.

How esle could they "have" you? I wouldn't trust those guys in the least.
I have yet to see a contract with ONE onerous clause. Either there are none
or there are a whole bunch in there, sometimes hidden.