Someone wanting to use our plane for thier commercial multi ticket

On 11 Nov 2004 11:05:20 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

zatatime wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2004 18:30:16 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

Also, since you're not making any money on
it, you may be exempt.

I'd be surprised if that was true. If it were, then flight schools
that couldn't make a profit could skip the 100 hr. inspection.


That's a commercial operation. Flight schools offer their planes for
hire, whether they make a profit on it or not is their problem. This
is an entirely different situation. The plane is not being offered
for hire, but loaned to someone for pursuit of a certificate.

That's the whole point of the question. Money is going to change
hands (I assume the ME student won't get the plane for free) and the
OP is wondering about whether or not his relationship to the owner
will make it appear to be a flight school. To some, the owner
offering his plane and pilot to the student, could have the
appearances of a commercial operation. How will you determine that
they're exempt because they're "not making money on it".

Because they are not renting the aircaft out or presenting it as any
other type of "For hire" operation.

z

Nathan Young wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:51 -0700, Scott D. wrote:


Be very careful on the insurance.

The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
damages it.
What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
as
the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
pilot. In your role,
you should really be named in some way on this insurance.

My understanding. And by the way, read the FAR about providing an
airplane
for instruction. You need 100 hour insp if you *provide* one. You
need to get the job done before 100 hours passes. Sure does not
depend on how much profit
you make. How many hours are you running it past 100 hrs
in a year anyway?

Bill Hale


My boss, who I fly for and am office manager for, personally ownes a
Seneca II. He had someone come up to him and asked him if he could
use the plane to get his commercial multi since there was no other
multi in the immediate area to do this in. I am also an MEI so my
boss told him that he would look into it and that his pilot "me" was
an MEI and that he could use me as well.

My question is, how do we handle this so that we dont become a flight
school and now have to go thru 100 hour inspections which would
increase the owners costs? I have discussed with the owner the
possiblility of making this guy a limited partner/co-owner in the
aircraft so that we keep from becoming said school and having the
additional inspection put in place. The guy does not really care to
be a part owner for the long haul, just long enought to get his
comm-multi so we are looking at 10-20 hours would be all he would fly.

Your boss can lend his plane to whomever he sees fit, as long as he
does not seek compensation for the hours flown (ie renting).

The next issue is insurance. There are two ways to make sure this
operation is covered.
1. Qualify under the open-pilot clause of the policy. This is
probably something like 1000TT, 250ME, and 50 in Seneca-II.
2. Have your boss add the MEI or the new pilot as a named-insured on
the policy. Unless the MEI/new pilot has similar time as your boss,
expect rates to go up.

-Nathan

Bill Hale wrote:
: The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
: is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
: damages it.
: What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
: as
: the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
: damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
: pilot. In your role,
: you should really be named in some way on this insurance.

I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
said that only the owner(s) of the aircraft were covered personally. Basically, then,
the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
open pilot clause.

I wonder if I just have a screwy insurance company. Has anyone else asked
about this specific issue?

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
: I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
: you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
: said that only the owner(s) of the aircraft were covered personally. Basically, then,
: the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
: open pilot clause.

My insurance company (Avemco) gives a "waiver of subrogation" to all named
pilots regardless of their ownership status. That means that Avemco will not
sue any named pilots if a claim is paid.

Were I a named pilot on anyone else's insurance I would get a "non-owner"
insurance policy. These are pretty cheap, as far as insurance goes.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

wrote in message ...
Bill Hale wrote:
: The policy covers the NAMED insured. All the "open pilot" clause does
: is make sure that the NAMED insured is covered if the open pilot
: damages it.
: What protection does the open pilot have? None. He is not insured
: as
: the NAMED insured is. The ins co might even sue him to recover
: damages for the NAMED insured. Keep that in mind if you are an open
: pilot. In your role,
: you should really be named in some way on this insurance.

I thought that too. I asked my insurance company, and they said that even if
you are NAMED on the policy, *you* are not covered... just that the aircraft is. They
----------
If you are NAMED but not an owner, then you are covered for liability. Since
the owner OWNS it, the airplane is still covered. The $$ to fix it
would go the the owner.

The total liability coverage remains the same: If you and the owner both get
sued, there's 1/2 each. That's why they don't like lots of named insureds.

Aaron Coolidge wrote in message ...
wrote:

My insurance company (Avemco) gives a "waiver of subrogation" to all named
pilots regardless of their ownership status. That means that Avemco will not
sue any named pilots if a claim is paid.

Were I a named pilot on anyone else's insurance I would get a "non-owner"
insurance policy. These are pretty cheap, as far as insurance goes.

That's not really necessary because the insurance company is required
to provide legal defense and liability to "named pilots". However open
waranty pilots are a different story and I believe what you are
talking about.

-Robert

wrote in message ...
Bill Hale wrote:

Basically, then,
the only purpose for being named on the policy was if you didn't qualify under the
open pilot clause.

An open pilot cannot have "causal" access to the plane. If you have
your own keys for the plane, insurance companies generally will
consider you to either be named or not covered.

-Robert