Club Management Issue

Dude wrote:
It would be fair in my view to charge him the hours for the return trip only
if you deducted the cost of his other transportation home.

Still, as a man who rents an airplane out, I would not charge him for diddly
unless I thought he may have been responsible for the failure.

You kill the battery, foul the plugs, pop the otherwise good tires, etc. and
you are on the hook. If its something that is not usually caused by loose
nuts behind the yoke, then I will treat you like a customer ought to expect
from a vendor.

Bingo! I was hoping someone would say that. I've owned an aircraft that was
leased to a flying club, and that would have been my reaction. I wouldn't do it
as a matter of written policy, but in a case like this where there is a dispute,
I would have stepped in and offered to cover all the costs (while hoping that
some of the other parties would say "awww, that's OK"), and considered it just
good customer relations... then I would have talked to the club about getting
the policy nailed down. This is way too little money to get upset about measured
against the scale of aircraft ownership expenses.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"John Galban" wrote in message
om

I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands.


Where can I read these cases?

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

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message nk.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?

First of all the instrument student is 100% responsible for the 182
ride back. He got his instruction. What type of cheap tight wad is he
thinking he could get free flight instruction time just because the
plane was somewhere else.


The real question is, who manages the maintenance? I've been in clubs
where its the club and I've been in clubs where its the owner. If the
club manages the maintenance than the extra costs are probably all on
the club.
If the owner manages the maint. then someone should have called the
owner and asked them if they wanted to fly someone out there. This
could have been done w/o flying (i.e. driving). The airplane owner
really should have been consulted and given the choice.

Basically, it sounds like no one was managing the operation. At each
step someone should have been saying, "Do we need to pay this". "Do we
need to fly an A&P out there or use a local A&P'. "Do we need to fly
anyone out there or just send a CFI in a pickup to go get the plane".
Since no one was in charge, you got the mess you would expect.

"John T" wrote in message ews.com...
"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?

Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

-Robert

Peter R. wrote in message ...
Geoffrey Barnes ) wrote:

Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.

Hmmm... reads to me like "Mark" is asking for more than his fair share of
the direct flight costs, which would be in violation of FAR part 91
regulations.

Here's how I see it:

Our A&P charged us $100 for the travel time back and forth.

Owners should pay this fee and thank their lucky stars that an A&P was not
called out of bed on a Sunday night to fix it. Hell, had our FBO's A&Ps
replaced an alternator during normal business hours, it would have easily
been $250 for parts and labor.

The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted to $70.

Owners.

Don't forget there is the cost of the A&P's hourly rate to ride in the
plane out there. If the owners were not asked about this first, the
club should pay. The owners could have elected to use a local A&P who
didn't need transport. It was a luxery of the club to quickly send out
their own A&P. The owners may have said, "Let it sit for a week until
old Bill (who lives out there) gets a chance to look at it".


Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175.

Divide $175 by three (three on board), then have the club pay Mark one
third for fuel.

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.

Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued
this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return,
right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time, not
ground time while awaiting repairs?

Remember, the student who flew it back got his flight instruction. Why
would that student expect to have free airplane time based on someone
else's straits? I would agree with you if it was just a CFI sent out
there, but a club member got to enjoy the airplane.



However, since the club does not have rules about being stranded, the club
should come up with the rental fees, then write a rule about being
stranded.




--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Having had an aircraft on leaseback, and reading the other replys here
is what I would expect:

The 182 owners should pony up for all the repair bills including the
A&P travel time. It's not very much and they are getting off easy.

The rental income is just that, handle it just like and other normal
rental.

Mark is on slippery ground and at best should get only a small amount
if any money back.

The way it should have happened is another on of the clubs aircraft
should have been used to fly everyone out. Then the club could either
write that time off, or charge some basic cost(fuel/oil/etc) back to
the 182's owners as part of the maintenance bill. This would/should be
part of the club bylaws.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message nk.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

There is a difference between "holding out" for business and simply
doing a favor. I think you guys are taking this all a little too
seriously---but then again, the issue is confused enough with regulatory
nonsense that perhaps it should be taken this seriously.

I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
admissible in court if there is ever a problem.

As for commonality of purpose, landing practice always ranks pretty high
with me, particularly at airports I don't fly to very often. In fact,
many of my flights are for the specific purpose of practicing landings.
Even a mediocre burger joint could serve my purpose for deciding where
to land; my taste is not under the FAA's purview (thankfully for both
them and me).



Robert M. Gary wrote:
"John T" wrote in message ews.com...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.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?


Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

-Robert

"John T" wrote:

I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands.


Where can I read these cases?

Search he

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

Here are two on this subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4306.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

Also, you might look at:

Administrator v. Reimer , 3 NTSB 2306 (1980),





Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.

I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air.

Are you being dense on purpose?

Read 61.113(a). The only thing it mentions is the question of "carrying
passengers or property for compensation or hire". The remainder of the
regulation are exceptions to (a), labeled (b) through (g). The only thing
61.113 talks about is whether Mark can take money for a flight. If he
doesn't take money for the flight, there's nothing in 61.113 that concerns
him.

FURTHERMO certainly nothing in 61.113 discusses whether or not he is
allowed to fly someone, without paying, even if that someone was the one
that proposed the flight.

Your response is like saying that, since 91.1 says Part 91"prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft", 91.173 is applicable every time a
pilot flies, even on a VFR flight.

I suppose technically it could be considered true, if you want to twist the
semantics, but no rationally thinking person would use the word "apply" that
way. Only some troll looking for an argument rather than the truth would.

Are you a troll?

When you find the regulation in the FARs that says Mark can't someone to
where they want to go at their request, then come back and we can talk about
it. Until then, your insistence on questioning whether they can is just
plain silly. Certainly there's nothing in the regulation you quote --
61.113 -- that addresses this question.

Pete

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?


Not likely. IIRC, there was an article recently in one of the aviation
pubs (AOPA Pilot, I think)
where a pilot flew a doctor and nurse to a crash site for no pay, and
wound up getting written up
by the FAA. Their view was that, even though the pilot didn't charge
anything for the flight, the doctor and nurse WERE being paid, and
therefore, it was deemed a commercial/135 operation.

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.