Club Management Issue

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.

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message


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.


OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

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

John T wrote:

OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

It still boils down to the fact that you can only share the expenses of a flight
that the group is making as an entity. The Feds have ruled that you cannot accept
compensation for transporting passengers unless you were going there anyway and
they're just along for the ride. You also can't advertise and take payment, and
that includes saying something to your friends like "Hey guys, I'm flying up to
Boston Saturday. Anybody wanna go along?" Half the people at Oshkosh probably
violate that one. It also includes offering to pilot a twin for free if you need
more twin time for a rating.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Oh come on.
A court would throw this out in an instant - because Mark shared the cost no
matter how you try to twist it.
In reality he is paying more than his share!

He would like to be reimbursed for only the fuel, not the maintenance which
is his portion of the cost of doing the flight!!!!!
like it or not - flying your own plane costs twice the fuel (or abit more)
for every hour you fly.

You can figure all the combinations and permutations, but no matter how you
twist it, it's a private flight.

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

You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
pilot pays more than his share or not.

Mike
MU-2


"BRO" wrote in message
. au...
Oh come on.
A court would throw this out in an instant - because Mark shared the cost
no
matter how you try to twist it.
In reality he is paying more than his share!

He would like to be reimbursed for only the fuel, not the maintenance
which
is his portion of the cost of doing the flight!!!!!
like it or not - flying your own plane costs twice the fuel (or abit more)
for every hour you fly.

You can figure all the combinations and permutations, but no matter how
you
twist it, it's a private flight.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
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:
You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
pilot pays more than his share or not.


There's a pretty good summary of many of the issues discussed in this thread at
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html "Traps For The Unwary: Business
Flying And The "Compensation Or Hire" Rule". Complete with references.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

I'm surprised no one has chimed in on "Mark" asking for reimbursement of fuel.
Unless he was flying under part 135, the best he could do is ask for no more
than the passenger's pro-rata share of the fuel, oil, aircraft rental fee (none
since it was his plane) and direct airport expenses for portion of the flight
the passengers flew. Even at that, I think he fails the common purpose clause,
since he wasn't have been flying to that airport anyway. The FAA takes a very
dim view of this type of operation, and would likely not allow ANY reimbursement
to "Mark" in this case. Getting caught by the FAA in what they consider a for
hire operation would cost Mark far more than the $175 fuel bill. Of course, if
this was a part 135 flight, this wouldn't apply but then I think in that case
the billing would have been discussed up front too.

Regarding the maintenance bill and the costs related to the airplane being
stranded, those should be paid by the aircraft owner since maintenance is his
responsibility. He doesn't want to create a climate that encourages renters to
attempt to return in an unairworthy (or marginally airworthy) aircraft to save
added expenses. The remaining expense could go either way, although if the club
or renter pay for the return trip on the airplane, the owner should pay for the
renter's travel expenses for his return. Of course, this is just my opinion.

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.

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

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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.

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?

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 =---

At best, only for the trip to the airport. The passengers did not return in the same
airplane. You'd need to divide the $175 by two for the round trip, and then divide
that by 3. Mark pays 4/6ths . However, as I stated, I think the common cause clause
trumps the pro-rata share anyway. Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.

"Peter R." wrote:

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


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.


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. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)