Club Management Issue

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

In article t,
"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.

Sounds like you got lucky -- you discovered a serious problem in the way
your club operates and got out of the mess with a relatively small
amount of money involved.

My club has a hard and fast rule which says what individual members are
allowed to do in the way of maintenance: they can add gas and oil, and
air to the tires. Anything else requires authorization from the
maintenance committee. If anything else needs doing, the member is
required to contact the maintenance committee before spending any money.

The last thing you want is individual members going out and doing their
own repairs. There's two issues here; one is to make sure that repairs
are done correctly and by mechanics we trust, the other is to keep a
handle on who is authorized to spend the club's money.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:11:23 +0000, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:


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?


We had a situation like that and the club just eat the mechanic's costs.
The owner receiver no revenue, because the reason was the flight was an
un-airworthy aircraft.

jerry

In a previous article, "Geoffrey Barnes" said:
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?

Our club has a policy that if you leave a plane somewhere you're
responsible for bringing it back or paying the costs for someone else to
bring it back. When I got weathered in in Ottawa with no instrument
rating, I had to pay the tach time for another club plane to come out with
two instrument rated pilots, one of whom flew the plane I had come out in,
and one to fly back the ferry plane. A very expensive weekend, I can tell
you.

Another time, however, a club member had a mechanical problem in Colorado
on a Sunday. He had three options:
1 - Abandon the plane and fly home commercial
2 - Call out a mechanic at Sunday emergency call out rates
3 - Wait until Monday and have it fixed at normal shop rates.
If he'd chosen the first, he agrees that he would have been responsible
for covering the costs of bringing it back. If he'd chosen option 2, he
feels the club would have covered the cost, and he's probably right about
that. So he chose option 3, and billed the club for the cost of his hotel
room for Sunday night. Now this caused a lot of dissention in the club,
because some of us thought it was his responsibility to cover expenses
caused by delays, since delays are a natural part of flying small aircraft
over long distance, and other people took his side, that the hotel was a
lot less than the amount we would have had to pay to get it fixed on
Sunday, so the club came out ahead. Eventually the club paid his hotel
bill.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
.... industry giant Microsoft Corporation... a company that has become
successful without resorting to software testing...
-- Unknown, rec.humor.funny

Paul Tomblin wrote:

Another time, however, a club member had a mechanical problem in Colorado
on a Sunday. He had three options:
1 - Abandon the plane and fly home commercial
2 - Call out a mechanic at Sunday emergency call out rates
3 - Wait until Monday and have it fixed at normal shop rates.
If he'd chosen the first, he agrees that he would have been responsible
for covering the costs of bringing it back. If he'd chosen option 2, he
feels the club would have covered the cost, and he's probably right about
that. So he chose option 3, and billed the club for the cost of his hotel
room for Sunday night. Now this caused a lot of dissention in the club,
because some of us thought it was his responsibility to cover expenses
caused by delays, since delays are a natural part of flying small aircraft
over long distance, and other people took his side, that the hotel was a
lot less than the amount we would have had to pay to get it fixed on
Sunday, so the club came out ahead. Eventually the club paid his hotel
bill.

Then the club did the right thing. The club was on the hook for the costs of
option #2 as soon as the mechanical problem occurred. Anything that the club
member did that reduced that obligation was gravy to the club. IMHO the club
should've picked up his meals, too, to the extent that the total outlay
(Monday's repair costs + hotel + meals) didn't exceed what option #2 would have
cost.

Russell Kent

Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively few!
All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:

The owners are responsible for maitenance, they should pay for the cost of
"failed maitenance". That includes all the related costs. Perhaps they
will learn a lesson about preventative maitenance.

The owners should get their portion of the rental fees for the return
flight.

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
k.net...
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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

John T wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the
airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the
flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey
refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the
argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not
a profitable one). There's little evidence that the FAA would come after
"Mark" if this is a rare occurrence, but the possibility of an
accident/incident and subsequent FAA enforcement action and potential denial of
insurance coverage does cause *some* people to hesitate.

But then Mike Rapoport is assuming that "Mark" doesn't already have a Pt135
certificate...

Russell Kent

"Russell Kent" wrote in message


IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

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

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Russell Kent" wrote in message


IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.


You are not doing "favors" when you charge for it (even if it is
unprofitable)

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.


This flight absolutely does not fall under Part 91.

Mike
MU-2

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