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 » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Club Management Issue



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 25th 04, 04:59 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #12  
Old March 25th 04, 05:32 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
____________________


  #13  
Old March 25th 04, 05:40 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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?


Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent
on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Mike
MU-2


  #14  
Old March 25th 04, 05:45 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination
until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there.

Mike
MU-2

"John T" wrote in message
ws.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?




  #15  
Old March 25th 04, 05:48 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
____________________




  #16  
Old March 25th 04, 06:07 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Rapoport ) wrote:

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent
on the return flight?


That is what I was saying. However, upon reflection, I would like to
retract that statement.

It is not his fault that the airplane broke.


Agreed.


--
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 =---
  #17  
Old March 25th 04, 06:26 PM
Geoffrey Barnes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.


As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault when
the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But it's still
the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so that other people
can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club members to come get the
plane.


---
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


  #18  
Old March 25th 04, 06:39 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.


OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

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


  #19  
Old March 25th 04, 06:46 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
[...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that

airport?

No, he's not saying that.

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're

taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that

even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.


No problem, because they don't say that.

The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even pro-rata
sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of purpose".

If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his time and
money however he likes.

Pete


  #20  
Old March 25th 04, 06:47 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
broke.



Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
their fault the plane broke.

While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This does
not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.

Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the club
covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in charging
him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for the
plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).

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


 




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
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members Andrew Gideon Aviation Marketplace 1 June 12th 04 03:03 AM
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members Andrew Gideon General Aviation 0 June 12th 04 02:14 AM
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post MrHabilis Home Built 0 June 11th 04 05:07 PM
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! Bill Mulcahy General Aviation 3 October 1st 03 05:39 AM
September issue of Afterburner now on line Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 9th 03 09:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 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.