Rental policy

DWD

I taped the tail back together on a 0-1 (Bird Dog) and we flew the
bird back from a Special Forces Camp to Home Plate in 1968.

Great stuff. Wouldn't be without it.

Big John


On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The
Myth, The Legend\)" wrote:


"David Megginson" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.

If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.

That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a
U/S
ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).


All the best,


David


What about duct tape on a load bearing structure?

On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:56:10 -0700, Peter wrote:


I'd recommend against accepting such a clause in a rental agreement.
The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
could lead to an unexpected breakdown. Therefore the renter who is
unlucky enough to have possession when the breakdown occurs should not
have to suffer undue financial hardship (he's probably already had his
day disrupted by not being able to continue his planned flight).

I also feel this clause could lead to renters taking slightly more risks
than they might otherwise to fly a marginal plane back to the home
airport.

Can you imagine a rental car company with such a policy? If Hertz told me
such a thing, I'd laugh in their face. I can understand something like a
24-hour window, just so pilots don't drop their plane off in the middle of
nowhere, every other day. But three days? Come on, that's not
reasonable. Even if the duration is deemed to be reasonable, the wording
is ambigious at best. This may leave the renter unreasonably exposed to
liabilty that the FBO should be covering. The FBO should be charging
rates to account for such problems, when and if they occur. Furthermore,
the language needs to be more explicate so as to detail problems and
schedules which are except (engine failure over weekends or holidays, etc).

As is, I know I sure wouldn't sign such a thing.

On Fri, 07 May 2004 08:12:00 -0700, Peter wrote:

Roger Long wrote:

The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
could lead to an unexpected breakdown.


The position of the FAR's and the FAA is that the renter should not be
flying the aircraft if he feels he or she has not control over the quality
of the maintenance. According to the responsibility placed on the pilot by
the rules, the PIC should have reviewed the logbooks, inspected the aircraft
thouroughly, and performed some due diligence that the shop was on the up
and up.

None of which gives the renter any *control* over the quality of the
maintenance although in some cases he may decide to rent elsewhere.

The policy of burdening the unlucky renter who happens to have
possession of the plane when an unexpected breakdown occurs is
unfair to that individual and acts as an incentive for flying
a plane that may be in marginal condition. Better to have a
slightly higher rental rate and spread the costs of
such incidents over all renters.

I agree. I would think, should an accident occur, the FBO is greatly
increasing their liability. I can easily see an attourney tearing them
apart on that basis.

On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:37:36 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you
could
afford your own plane!


Yeah, but, if he bought his own plane, flew it somewhere and something
broke, he would have to stay with it for three days and pay all the costs of
repairing it, getting it back, transportation if he had to go back and
forth, and any other expenses that might come up. He wouldn't even have the
protection of the FBO limit on having to stay with the plane only three
days.

Think how unfair all that would be!

I can't fathom that you stated this. It's not the same. There is a
difference between being owner and responsible for it and being owner and
forcing your responsibility onto someone else.