"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote
But then again, maybe the split nature of the responses stems from the fact
that there really ARE no consistent policies across FBOs and clubs for
situations like this one.

Exactly. This varies all over the place, and is dealt with in all
sorts of ways - up to and including one plane I used to rent where the
owner simply didn't want it ever going anywhere far from home.

Realize, however, that the way you handle this situation will set a
precedent. You (and I mean you as a club rather than as an
individual) are setting policy, and you should think very carefully
about the kind of policy you set because it will be hard to change
later.

The exact amount of Mark's fuel costs are still up in the air at this point,
but I know for a fact that he has been warned to think very, very carefully
about what he asks for. His thinking is still ongoing at this point, and
I'll let him come to that decision on his own.

Then you have already set a policy - you're not going to be readily
forthcoming with fuel costs for owners who help you out in these
situations. That's your decision to make - but realize this is going
to get around, and in all likelihood this will be the last time an
owner helps you out. Proper protocol in this kind of situation is to
pay for all the fuel, and be grateful that you are really only paying
25-50% of the actual costs.

Our original renter pilot, Paul, refuses to acknowledge any responsibiliby
for any of these costs. Since the club had no standing policy on this
question, there is no legitimate way in which the club can force Paul to pay
it. Frankly, if it were me, I would have just paid for the return flight
and avoided all the controversy about it. I also would not have left the
plane stranded in the first place, and would have hung around until it got
fixed. But Paul is pretty adamant and will not volunteer anything at all to
defray these costs, and the club has no policies on the books which say that
he has to.

The ONLY reason that I (and I imagine many others) would choose
renting/clubbing over ownership is exactly this situation - not
bearing responsibility for maintenance. Being able to just leave the
unairworthy plane and say "This is not my problem." That's the only
advantage of renting/clubbing over ownership (either sole or shared)
if you are flying enough to be proficient (CFI's are a special case
here). So make the decision - do you want a club full of people who
average 20 hours a year and a few CFI's? Be forewarned - a few years
of this, and the standard of proficiency will be such that you are
quite likely to find yourself an unattractive insurance risk.

So either the club eats it -- essentially forcing 60-some other
people to pay for Paul's decision -- or we pass it onto the owners and risk
****ing them off.

You don't pass it on to the owners without their consent - not unless
you want them to start carrying a reserve for such contingencies - at
your expense of course. What I'm telling you is that either you will
lose the airplane, or you WILL pay those costs, one way or another.

I am sensitive to the idea that putting the renter on the hook for these
costs may make induce some pressure for them to overlook mechanical
problems. But the same could be said of a VFR pilot trapped under an
overcast and facing the costs of calling in two IFR "rescue" pilots to
retrieve the aircraft. The two situations cannot be separated from one
another, or every cloudy sky will begin to trigger phone calls to the club
office claiming that the planes won't start, and that the club should pay to
get them home.

I guess I don't see it that way. When the plane starts just fine, the
renter is back on the hook for the rescue operation. I think the two
situations are quite easy to separate. Whether you wish to separate
them is a matter of club policy. Right now, you have no club policy.
That's just dumb - you need one. What it should be is up to you
(again, not you as an individual but you as a club) - as long as it's
stated up front, nobody has a legitimate bitch. But push too much of
the maintenance risk onto the club members, and you will lose the ones
who are the most active and fly the most. They won't protest and quit
in disgust - but pretty soon they will be owners and will have no need
for the club.

Michael