A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rental policy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th 04, 06:10 PM
Robert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rental policy

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



  #2  
Old May 6th 04, 07:04 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sounds like you could rent a car, drive home to Long Beach and return to
Santa Barbara when the plane was fixed and fly it back.

Mike
MU-2

"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





  #3  
Old May 6th 04, 07:05 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Robert" writes:

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.


I haven't rented in a long time, but most rental FBO's I dealt with
before becoming an owner discouraged (some really heavily) taking the
plane to places far away for extended periods, and instead preferred
that you just took day trippers.

I think the biggest encouragement for me to become an owner was the
crappy rentals (even a brand new, zero hours plane is a crappy rental
if the FBO policies are as draconian as the one mentioned above).

-jav
  #4  
Old May 6th 04, 09:34 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


taking the
plane to places far away for extended periods, and instead preferred
that you just took day trippers.


A couple years ago I wanted to rent the Cub for three days to go to
the Sentimental Journey in Lock Haven. They had no problem with the
hours (I would have put on quite a few) but wouldn't let the plane go
overnight on a weekend in the summer, so as not to inconvenience
students and renters.


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
  #5  
Old May 6th 04, 07:06 PM
Tony Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Robert" wrote in message
...

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."


It looks to me as if they've been "burnt" in the past and
inserted that clause to cover themselves. Perhaps someone
took off with a dodgy alternator & then declared it 'bad'
in Catalina & billed them for the hotel... Anyway, that clause
doesn't look as if it's been written by a lawyer - the "must
remain" part seems too much like slavery & likely to be
too vague to be enforceable.

It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
it won't apply to you.


  #6  
Old May 6th 04, 07:28 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tony Cox" writes:

It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
it won't apply to you.


There are rentals that don't need to be repaired?

-jav
  #7  
Old May 6th 04, 07:34 PM
Shiver Me Timbers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.


If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.
  #8  
Old May 6th 04, 08:19 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.


If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.


That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a U/S
ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).


All the best,


David

  #9  
Old May 8th 04, 10:08 PM
Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Megginson" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.


If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.


That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a

U/S
ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).


All the best,


David


What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?


  #10  
Old May 7th 04, 12:15 AM
gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Shiver Me Timbers" wrote in message

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.


If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.


My initial thought was the same, but upon re-reading it, it seems to be
saying that if you take the plane to a remote location and THEN determine
something is wrong, you have to stay with the plane. 'Cause if the PIC
knew there was a problem before taking it out, well, he's got bigger issues
than the FBO policy. But what if you fly someplace and, say, the alternator
fails while you're gone? You certainly don't fly back, but the FBO doesn't
want you just abandoning the plane there.

Not sure it's a good policy, but I think that's what it means.

-c


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution WalterM140 Military Aviation 20 July 2nd 04 04:09 PM
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) Anonymous Spamless Military Aviation 0 April 21st 04 05:09 AM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 1 April 9th 04 11:25 PM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Naval Aviation 0 April 7th 04 07:31 PM
CBS Newsflash: Rental trucks pose imminent and grave danger to national security Ron Lee Piloting 4 January 15th 04 03:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.