Club Management Issue

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator
goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George!

Hey, I don't know anything about alternators! Really! Of course, I *have* been
told that a bad adjustment of the voltage reg ....... Uh .. never mind.

Uh, you aren't still
****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George?

Of course not! Don't even remember the exchange! :-)

Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! g

It's a screwdriver, but, ok, if you insist. :-)

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

Everyone here is worrying about legality, but I'll give you some
practical advice.

Thank you, Michael! You really summed things up. As this thread begins to
wear thin, I will throw in a few observations.

First of all, I am glad that I provided a thread that revealed a great deal
to me about the compensation for hire rules and the case law that surrounds
them. I learned a great deal. But I also must say that I received only a
few answers to my original question which was, "how do the FBOs and clubs
that you deal with handle this situation". Even though I really enjoyed the
responses regarding Mark's dangerous dance with the FARs, and even though I
could get wrapped up in all the ethical and moral standards which govern who
should pay for what, those really weren't the kinds of answers I was looking
for.

I really just want to know what rules and policies are in place at other
businesses which rent aircraft out. The club, in my mind, has failed in
this case because nobody ever decided what would happen in this
all-too-predictable scenario, and no rules were in the by-laws to govern
this decision. As a result, Paul -- the renter pilot -- had no idea what to
expect, and that's just no way to run things.

But then again, maybe the split nature of the responses stems from the fact
that there really ARE no consistent policies across FBOs and clubs for
situations like this one. I know for a fact that one of the local
establishments in these parts would have laid into Paul with fees for every
last penny involved in getting the aircraft home, and probably would have
tacked some additonal penalty onto the bill as well. That's all well and
good as a single indicator, but one of the reasons that we even have a club
is that so many of us were frustrated with the policies at this particular
FBO, and we don't exactly want to emulate their punitive polices. So if
anyone else has any experience with this kind of situation from another FBO
or club, I am still anxious to hear about how other places deal with it.

Now that that's out of the way, I guess I should give some update and
clarify a small number of points.

First, the owners knew about the mechanic's trip beforehand, and were happy
for him to go. They have developed a good relationship with this particual
A&P, and I think they felt more comfortable with him than they would have
with some unknown mechanic at the remote field. The owners definitely won't
have a problem with either the $70 in parts and labor, or the $100 that the
A&P billed as a travel fee.

The exact amount of Mark's fuel costs are still up in the air at this point,
but I know for a fact that he has been warned to think very, very carefully
about what he asks for. His thinking is still ongoing at this point, and
I'll let him come to that decision on his own.

Our original renter pilot, Paul, refuses to acknowledge any responsibiliby
for any of these costs. Since the club had no standing policy on this
question, there is no legitimate way in which the club can force Paul to pay
it. Frankly, if it were me, I would have just paid for the return flight
and avoided all the controversy about it. I also would not have left the
plane stranded in the first place, and would have hung around until it got
fixed. But Paul is pretty adamant and will not volunteer anything at all to
defray these costs, and the club has no policies on the books which say that
he has to. So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and risk
****ing them off.

After looking at this issue about 100 times in the last 5 days, I think I
have finally formed my own thoughts on the matter. It was a maintenance
issue which took the plane down, and the owners are clearly on the hook for
fixing the aircraft and returning it to an airworthy condition. So it is
the owner's problem that the alternator went out. The only reason why the
alternator went bad 250 miles from here, however, is that Paul decided to
take it there. The owners are responsible for fixing the problem,
regardless of where the plane is when the problem occurs. But Paul's job
was to get that plane back here. Nobody else took the plane there, and
nobody else should bear the responsiblity of getting it home.

I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
problems. But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
retrieve the aircraft. The two situations cannot be separated from one
another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay to
get them home.

Let's say Paul had stayed, gotten the problem fixed the next day, then then
flown the plane home. Clearly, he would have been billed for the 2.3 hours
it took to fly from there to here. Paul instead made a decision that it was
more important to get home than to take care of the aircraft which had been
entrusted to his care. Fair enough, that's his call. But that doesn't let
him escape his obligation to get the plane back to where the rest of the
membership can use it. If you make the decision to leave the plane
stranded, you have to own up to the costs that your decision is throwing
onto everyone else.

As our Chief CFI said to me today, "do we really need a rule which says that
when you take one of the club's airplanes, you have to bring it back?"
Sadly, I think we do. Thanks for your help, everybody!



---
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
nk.net...
[...] Even though I really enjoyed the
responses regarding Mark's dangerous dance with the FARs, and even though
I
could get wrapped up in all the ethical and moral standards which govern
who
should pay for what, those really weren't the kinds of answers I was
looking
for.

Well, you got the answers that were available, and then the thread expanded
to other related topics. That's not uncommon on Usenet. Be thankful it
didn't turn into some political tirade.

[...] So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and
risk
****ing them off.

Between those two choices, the club probably should bear the cost, since
after all, it is the club who failed to clarify what the policy would be in
the first place. I suppose the club could charge it back to the owners, but
it doesn't sound like good business to me, nor is it clear that should the
owners decide to take it to court, that they would lose.

[...] So it is
the owner's problem that the alternator went out. The only reason why the
alternator went bad 250 miles from here, however, is that Paul decided to
take it there.

Um, I'm not sure what you mean here. Nothing in your original post
suggested that there was any reason for Paul to suspect the alternator was
going to fail before he departed. Assuming he didn't, I don't see how "Paul
decided to take it there" has any bearing. Airplanes are, after all, all
about going places. It's practically a foregone conclusion that if a
failure should happen, it will happen somewhere relatively far away from
home.

As for whether Paul should be expected to remain with the airplane or should
be expected to pay for the return flight, I think your logic is a little
off. First of all, it may not have been possible for him to remain with the
airplane. As for paying for the return flight, it gets back to what the
club is warranting. Renting is expensive, and the renter has very little
control over most of the things an owner would normally control. These are
the downsides. The upside is that the renter doesn't have to worry about
maintenance.

IMHO, this also includes any hassles related to a failure that occurs away
from the airplane's home base. Assuming the renter didn't cause the
failure, why should he have to pay for use of the airplane after that
failure? It was only "Paul's job to get that plane back here" up until the
point where the airplane failed.

Compare it to a rental car, for example. You can bet that if I rented a
car, and that car broke down somewhere, there's no way I'd pay for any
mileage past what I'd already driven. I would contact the rental company,
and expect them to high-tail it out to my location with a replacement car so
I could get on my way. If they refused that, I'd make my own arrangements
and let them deal with the car in their own time. I sure as heck wouldn't
pay for *their* mileage back to the rental office, after they got the car
fixed and drove it back themselves.

Frankly, I would expect the rental company, should I be significantly
inconvenienced (more than a 30 minute delay or so, maybe shorter depending
on my schedule), to give me a significant discount, even if they do provide
a replacement car. And a real high-class outfit ought to provide the entire
rental for free.

So, in the case of the airplane, if the club really wants to be known as a
responsible outfit, they should have flown out a replacement airplane, or
otherwise assisted in arranging for alternative transportation for the
renter. They definitely should not expect the renter to pay for any time
beyond what HE actually flew. And frankly, they really ought to discount or
eliminate altogether the charges for the time he did fly.

I realize that aviation is a business with thin margins. But if you don't
treat your customers properly, your margins mean nothing, because your
customers disappear. The fact that this is a club doesn't change things.
If the club doesn't have the margins to cover this sort of thing, they need
to raise their rates enough so that they do. Yes, this means that everyone
pays a little more. But if the club has decent maintenance of the
airplanes, we're not talking any amount that anyone would notice, and it
will return huge dividends in goodwill.

I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
problems.

Yes, it might as well. However, I don't think you really need to even
consider that possibility to see why the renter should not be charged to
bring the plane back.

But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
retrieve the aircraft.

No, the same could not be said. The VFR pilot is, by definition, subject to
the whim of the weather (as is the IFR pilot, for that matter). As long as
the club has a reasonable policy for dealing with weather delays, such as
what I mentioned in my first reply to your post, there should be no need for
anyone to come rescue him. Any pilot should be prepared to be delayed by
weather, and should not need a rescue. Of course, if the pilot chooses to
avail himself of that option, understanding the extra costs that he will
incur, that's another thing. But that's not a normal, expected outcome of
being weathered in. Waiting is.

The two situations cannot be separated from one
another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay
to
get them home.

Huh? Again, your logic is flawed. Weather simply means the pilot will be
late coming back with the plane; the club has no responsibility to get them
home. Mechanical failure is completey different. Furthermore, I doubt the
club would have pilots calling to complain about a mechanical problem when
they were really just weathered in. After all, mechanical problems need
fixing, and it's easily verified whether a mechanical problem really existed
or not.

Let's say Paul had stayed, gotten the problem fixed the next day, then
then
flown the plane home. Clearly, he would have been billed for the 2.3
hours
it took to fly from there to here.

Why? Only the FARs would require that he be billed, assuming he he didn't
have a commercial rating. Otherwise, the club should not only waive any
charges for the flight home, but should also pay for his overnight lodging.

Paul instead made a decision that it was
more important to get home than to take care of the aircraft which had
been
entrusted to his care.

"Entrusted to his care"? Excuse me? That's just silly. The aircraft was
"entrusted to his care" only inasmuch as the aircraft met the implied
warranty of airworthiness. The instant it failed that, it is no longer his
responsibility. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that if he had an
engine failure in flight, but failed to land the airplane without any
damage, you'd send him the bill for the repairs.

Fair enough, that's his call. But that doesn't let
him escape his obligation to get the plane back to where the rest of the
membership can use it.

He had no such obligation, once the mechanical failure occured.

As our Chief CFI said to me today, "do we really need a rule which says
that
when you take one of the club's airplanes, you have to bring it back?"

I can tell you, if I was a member of a club that created a rule like that
that included mechanical failures, I would quit in a heartbeat. I want a
club that will take care of their airplanes, and stand by their own
responsibility to the club members renting the airplane to provide an
airworthy airplane. I don't want a club that feels it has the right to pass
the buck to renters who have the misfortune to have the hot potato in their
hands when something breaks.

It's bad enough Paul had the inconvenience of having an airplane break while
he was using it, but now you want him to PAY for that privilege? That's
just silly.

Pete

Thanks, Peter. Everything you say has great merit, and I agree with all of
your points. As you noted, the club could of course raise our hourly rate
to build up a margin that would allow us to deal with these contingencies at
no cost to the member who finds himself stranded someplace. At the end of
the day, we either do that or we ask individual pilots to take
responsibility for getting the plane home after the owner-financed repairs
have been accomplished.

So in this case, it really is a key fact that this is a club and not just
another FBO. We have members, and not just simple customers, and it will be
the members who must decide which way they want to go. The club currently
passes virtually all of the rental fees back to the owners of the planes,
and what little it does keep mostly goes back out the door in sales tax.
For the most part, this particular club has historically sided with keeping
the hourly costs down for all of the members and has shunned taking on
additional expenses such as paying for ferrying costs when the PIC decides
to abandon an aircraft somewhere else. If I were handicapping the way that
the membership will vote, I suspect that they will prefer to keep the hourly
costs where they are while accepting the potential for having to pay
ferrying costs in the future.

That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.
I still really appreciate your comments, though, and I thank you for a very
good response that must have taken a goodly amount of time to write. You
are a quality guy, mate, and I thank you for it!


---
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

I guess that I see it differently.

The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
replace things to insure better reliability.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks, Peter. Everything you say has great merit, and I agree with all
of
your points. As you noted, the club could of course raise our hourly rate
to build up a margin that would allow us to deal with these contingencies
at
no cost to the member who finds himself stranded someplace. At the end of
the day, we either do that or we ask individual pilots to take
responsibility for getting the plane home after the owner-financed repairs
have been accomplished.

So in this case, it really is a key fact that this is a club and not just
another FBO. We have members, and not just simple customers, and it will
be
the members who must decide which way they want to go. The club currently
passes virtually all of the rental fees back to the owners of the planes,
and what little it does keep mostly goes back out the door in sales tax.
For the most part, this particular club has historically sided with
keeping
the hourly costs down for all of the members and has shunned taking on
additional expenses such as paying for ferrying costs when the PIC decides
to abandon an aircraft somewhere else. If I were handicapping the way
that
the membership will vote, I suspect that they will prefer to keep the
hourly
costs where they are while accepting the potential for having to pay
ferrying costs in the future.

That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.
I still really appreciate your comments, though, and I thank you for a
very
good response that must have taken a goodly amount of time to write. You
are a quality guy, mate, and I thank you for it!


---
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
ink.net...
That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with
every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue.

Obviously, I disagree. But as long as the club is clear about the policy, I
guess they can set whatever policy they want.

However, just keep in mind that, just as the private pilot renter would be
required by FAR to pay for the flight back, should he choose to stay with
the plane until it's fixed, the club can only legally bill back the cost of
having someone else fly the plane back if that someone else has a commercial
certificate. Otherwise, the person flying the plane back is required to pay
for the flight.

Pete

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote
But then again, maybe the split nature of the responses stems from the fact
that there really ARE no consistent policies across FBOs and clubs for
situations like this one.

Exactly. This varies all over the place, and is dealt with in all
sorts of ways - up to and including one plane I used to rent where the
owner simply didn't want it ever going anywhere far from home.

Realize, however, that the way you handle this situation will set a
precedent. You (and I mean you as a club rather than as an
individual) are setting policy, and you should think very carefully
about the kind of policy you set because it will be hard to change
later.

The exact amount of Mark's fuel costs are still up in the air at this point,
but I know for a fact that he has been warned to think very, very carefully
about what he asks for. His thinking is still ongoing at this point, and
I'll let him come to that decision on his own.

Then you have already set a policy - you're not going to be readily
forthcoming with fuel costs for owners who help you out in these
situations. That's your decision to make - but realize this is going
to get around, and in all likelihood this will be the last time an
owner helps you out. Proper protocol in this kind of situation is to
pay for all the fuel, and be grateful that you are really only paying
25-50% of the actual costs.

Our original renter pilot, Paul, refuses to acknowledge any responsibiliby
for any of these costs. Since the club had no standing policy on this
question, there is no legitimate way in which the club can force Paul to pay
it. Frankly, if it were me, I would have just paid for the return flight
and avoided all the controversy about it. I also would not have left the
plane stranded in the first place, and would have hung around until it got
fixed. But Paul is pretty adamant and will not volunteer anything at all to
defray these costs, and the club has no policies on the books which say that
he has to.

The ONLY reason that I (and I imagine many others) would choose
renting/clubbing over ownership is exactly this situation - not
bearing responsibility for maintenance. Being able to just leave the
unairworthy plane and say "This is not my problem." That's the only
advantage of renting/clubbing over ownership (either sole or shared)
if you are flying enough to be proficient (CFI's are a special case
here). So make the decision - do you want a club full of people who
average 20 hours a year and a few CFI's? Be forewarned - a few years
of this, and the standard of proficiency will be such that you are
quite likely to find yourself an unattractive insurance risk.

So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and risk
****ing them off.

You don't pass it on to the owners without their consent - not unless
you want them to start carrying a reserve for such contingencies - at
your expense of course. What I'm telling you is that either you will
lose the airplane, or you WILL pay those costs, one way or another.

I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
problems. But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
retrieve the aircraft. The two situations cannot be separated from one
another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay to
get them home.

I guess I don't see it that way. When the plane starts just fine, the
renter is back on the hook for the rescue operation. I think the two
situations are quite easy to separate. Whether you wish to separate
them is a matter of club policy. Right now, you have no club policy.
That's just dumb - you need one. What it should be is up to you
(again, not you as an individual but you as a club) - as long as it's
stated up front, nobody has a legitimate bitch. But push too much of
the maintenance risk onto the club members, and you will lose the ones
who are the most active and fly the most. They won't protest and quit
in disgust - but pretty soon they will be owners and will have no need
for the club.

Michael

My comments are made without reading the other posts, so I apologize if
it duplicates any responses.

Unfortunately, if the Club has not specifically addressed this issue in
its policies or by-laws it can get pretty interesting.

The club that I am a member of, Bay Area Aero Club in the Houston area
has the rule that a Pilot who leaves an aircraft "out" and returns
without the aircraft is responsible for 100% of the costs of recovery,
but is given first dibs at the effort (within reason.. same day, next
day or offering to buy commercial fare for the recovery pilot to fly out).

In out club, the owner bears 100% of maintenance costs. In the event of
an incident or accident (in motion or not, certain deductibles apply).
Maintenance does necessarily require bringing your own mechanic cross
country, so this was a MAINTENANCE decision by the owner, and in my
situation/setting, the travel time, parts and labor costs would be 100%
the responsibility of the owner. The owners made a CHOICE to ferry their
own mechanic by air rather than drive them or use local labor. There was
an A&P on field who would have been there the next business day. I would
have a hard time charging that to the pilot. Maintenance costs are part
of the owner's cost of owning planes, regardless of where they occur.

The next part gets muddier in my eyes... A club CFI is ferried out, with
a "student" to recover the plane and bring it back. Ordinarily, the cost
of the plane flying back, plus the costs to travel TO the aircraft are
the responsibility of the pilot who left the aircraft. More than 50-75
miles in my mind justifies air travel and the expenses associated with
it. But, the student is reaping the benefit of club instruction from a
club instructor performing a ferry flight, for free.. and also not
having to pay for his scheduled lesson in the other plane that he DIDNT
get... this just doesnt strike me as kosher. The "student" who came
along on the recovery should contribute in my mind an amount NOT TO
EXCEED the amount he would have expended had he and his instructor NOT
gone on the ferry flight. In other words, he gets to log 182 time, even
if he only pays the 172/warrior price that he WOULD have spent
otherwise. IN MY OPINION, the student shouldnt get a free ride at the
expense of the guy who landed out.

Looking at the numbers you provided, $175 in fuel costs (for Mark) for a
"several hundred mile trip" is quite a bit of fuel.. thats 60-70 gallons
of fuel for a roundtrip.. what did they take? a light twin? a Cessna
Caravan, or a Malibu running flat out? Was this more economical than
using another club airplane for the roundtrip? Was the whole situation
handled as economically as it could have been? Again, if they took a
BIG, gas guzzling plane so they could ferry the mechanic and tools, this
factor should be addressed and partially PAID for by the owner.

I feel that in this situation, the pilot who left the plane should
reasonably be responsible for the costs of getting a pilot TO the plane,
any tiedown or fuel costs associated with leaving it out, and NORMALLY
the wet rate cost of returning the aircraft. Because the aircraft was
used for instruction on the recovery leg, this complicates things in my
eyes, since the "recovery leg" becomes a "revenue leg". The people who
performed/received the instruction should bear SOME of the cost of the
flight, out of principle.

I am guessing that because there is no clear direction on this in the
clubs P&P that there WILL be hurt feelings. There may be people who
quit, or are kicked out of the club, and some of these costs may be
unrecovered, becoming an expense of the club. The lesson here is the
club needs to come up with some concise guidelines as to what is and is
not expected of owners, renters, and recovery pilots when dealing with
recovering a plane that "landed out". The club needs to establish
guidelines regarding what is reasonable and what is not with regards to
costs and economy, as well as what constitues a revenue flight and what
does not, and all the gray areas in between.

My club doesnt go into such detail on many of these issues, but as a
whole we have managed to deal with such situations pretty fairly. I have
landed out twice since I joined nearly 4 years ago. One time I ferried
the owner out in a Mooney the next day to recover his plane.. and I paid
for the mooney and the Owners Grumman's flight time. The other time, I
wasnt charged a dime, despite promising the owner and reminding him
through the club treasurer I would be responsible for flight costs back
to base (both situations were less than 1 hour flying time away).

The by-laws and SOP's for the club I'm in can be found at
www.bayareaaeroclub.org .

Good luck
Dave

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

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
My comments are made without reading the other posts, so I apologize if
it duplicates any responses.

Looking at the numbers you provided, $175 in fuel costs (for Mark) for a
"several hundred mile trip" is quite a bit of fuel.. thats 60-70 gallons
of fuel for a roundtrip.. what did they take? a light twin? a Cessna
Caravan, or a Malibu running flat out? Was this more economical than
using another club airplane for the roundtrip? Was the whole situation
handled as economically as it could have been? Again, if they took a
BIG, gas guzzling plane so they could ferry the mechanic and tools, this
factor should be addressed and partially PAID for by the owner.


Actually $175 is 70 gallons (at $2.50) and presumably Mark is paying for a
third on the flight out and all the fuel on the way back for a total of 210
gallons. Mark's plane must be turbine powered or a DC-3!

Mike
MU-2

In rec.aviation.owning 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.
snip
We've heard a lot of how various clubs handle this, let me tell you how
my FBO handles this situation. First, the FBO is a customer-driven, for-profit
organization. They operate about 12 airplanes, 152's, 172's, warriors,
arrows, and a dutchess.
Weather: The FBO dispaches all flights (unlike most clubs), so presumably
the weather is suitable for the flight.
Maintenance: The FBO does routine maintenance, and has a pretty well
maintained fleet.

If the weather turns sour suddenly or the airplane has a maintenance issue,
the renter is expected to not push it; the FBO wants them to leave
("abandon") the airplane at a reasonable airport and the FBO will arrange
for their transportation back to the FBO. The FBO then arranges to recover
the airplane. Sometimes these things are combined: 2 CFI's fly out to
pick up a VFR-only pilot stranded for weather reasons. The renter's
obligation stops when the airplane hobbs stops (unless the FBO deems the
renter "unreasonable", which I have not heard of occurring).
In one case, the airplane & pilot were weathered in for 3 or 4 days
over 800 miles away. The pilot elected to stay with the plane, and the
FBO picked up those expenses (hotel & meals).

I cannot imagine how a corporation could operate any other way, in today's
legal climate. I would think that a lawyer would hold the FBO responsible if
the renter were required to arrange for transporting a mechanical'd or
weathered-in airplane, chose to fly to save $$$, and had an incident/accident.

The FBO is also a customer-driven business enterprise. If the customers
thought they were getting a raw deal they have the option of not being
customers anymore.

--
Aaron Coolidge