Club Management Issue

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)

The OP stated "On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his, who
we'll call 'Mark'". I recall reading recently where the FAA considered a favor as
compensation. Maybe it was AOPA's pilot counsel column or Avweb. In any event, the
wording of this statement shows a clear benefit to Mark.

John Galban wrote:

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)

--
--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

"John Galban" wrote in message
om

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.


Where can I read these cases?

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

"John T" wrote:

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.


Where can I read these cases?

Search he

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

Here are two on this subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4306.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

Also, you might look at:

Administrator v. Reimer , 3 NTSB 2306 (1980),





Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

John T wrote:

Where can I read these cases?

Back issues of AOPA Pilot. John Yodice's column. Available online to members.

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

On 25 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

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.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

Peter Clark wrote in message . ..

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

The only pilot I've heard dinged for accepting flight time for
compensation was a guy hauling skydivers for no pay, in someone else's
aircraft. Basically, he was time-building by logging hours in his
logbook that he would have otherwise had to pay for by renting an
aircraft. He was also conducting a commercial operation at the time,
but that's a seperate issue.

In this case, Mark owns his own aircraft (see original post). If
Mark pays for the costs of the flight, who is compensating him with
flight time? The answer is no one. If you pay for the entire cost
of the flight, you have a much greater latitude on the types of
flights you can make.

If my brother needs a ride to an airport 200 miles away (for
whatever reason), he just calls me, we hop in my plane and I drop him
off. No problem. Now if I want to share any of the costs of that
flight, the FAA man would definitely be interested. I had no reason
to fly to that airport other than to drop off my bro. If I want to
start collecting money for that sort of thing, I begin to look a lot
like a Part 135 air taxi, rather than a private pilot. Same flight,
with the only difference being that money (compensation) changed
hands. Where private vs. commercial flying is concerned, the FAA has
spelled out pretty clearly what the exceptions are in the regs
(although IMHO, there are still some fuzzy areas).

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

"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