Club Management Issue

Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


---
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

You really don't want to **** off someone who knows how airplanes work,
has a
set of tools, and knows where your plane lives.

Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator
goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George! Uh, you aren't still
****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George?
Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! g


---
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...
Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


Except that the situation you've just described is in fact now
completely legal. You can even be more relaxed and get reimbursed
for flying yourself and your boss. Part 135 rules don't apply.

The difference is that in your situation you were going to the same
meeting, so there is a common purpose. In "Mark"'s case, he'd never
have gone to the airfield without being asked to help out.

Risk wise, I agree with you. Your situation is far riskier than for Mark.
Which only goes to show that the current rules about commercial operation
don't properly address 'risk' nor 'implied consent', which in my opinion
are the only reasons for having them in the first place.

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.

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

A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications
flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


---
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 . net, "Geoffrey
Barnes" writes:

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.

What makes you think that the comercial pilot isn't going through the same
pressures? I was in the Bahamas talking to a payed pilot who was to fly his
bosses guests back to the States (and into a cold front). He was to make two
trips. I wouldn't have gone when he did and he said he wouldn't if he didn't
have to. Another time in Canada, the pilot wanted to leave before evening when
" the bears will be on the runway". Paying customer and girlfriend stayed thru
the evening. These guys don't make enough ( and they are climbing a steep
ladder) so that it is very hard to tell the boss no and give up the next
charter. I have some of these same thoughts when I take an Angel Flight. Easy
to say the academic "What should be done".

Chuck

"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

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
but that's not the only issue around.

Says you. Says I, "it's the only reasonable justification for
commercial flight regulation".

Another justification is that when a pilot is "holding out" or is receiving
compensation, history shows that such a pilot is more likely to fly in more
inclement weather. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to hold
the airplane to a higher maintenance standard and to hold the pilot to a
higher standard ratings and experience.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

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

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot iaccept an offer of
payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Absent some other clear explanation, the presence of such a dead-head leg on
the return trip would raise a significant suspicion in my mind that the
outbound trip did not have a commonality of purpose.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com