![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter,
I want to clarify and perhaps disagree with a point you are making... If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING pilot. The abandoning pilot would have had to pay the flight time to return the aircraft if he had flown the plane home hisself. I am of the firm conviction if you abandon a plane 3 hours from home, you should be prepared to pay for the flight time (i.e. WET RENTAL RATE) of that plane to get it home, and I dont see where a commercial certificate comes into play. Our club does not pay any kind of stipend to members who perform a recovery, regardless of their rating. In this particular recovery, though, there appears to have been instruction (revenue) which muddies the whole who pays what issue. In the two instances where I have left club planes out, my first phone call was to the owner of the aircraft (they are very involved, actively managing the planes) and letting them take lead on deciding how to handle it. Our club's maintenance officer can only authorize up to $300 in maintenance without owner approval anyways, and as a general rule, our club's maintenance officer's routine duties involve maintenance at the base. Any situations that deviate from the norm fall back on the owners. Dave Peter Duniho wrote: "Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message ink.net... That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue. Obviously, I disagree. But as long as the club is clear about the policy, I guess they can set whatever policy they want. However, just keep in mind that, just as the private pilot renter would be required by FAR to pay for the flight back, should he choose to stay with the plane until it's fixed, the club can only legally bill back the cost of having someone else fly the plane back if that someone else has a commercial certificate. Otherwise, the person flying the plane back is required to pay for the flight. Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave S" wrote in message
news ![]() [...] If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING pilot. The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private certificate, that is clearly against the FARs. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter,
I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. Does that count as a commercial operation too? Is my license in peril in your mind because of that? (I'm a private pilot). Dave Peter Duniho wrote: "Dave S" wrote in message news ![]() [...] If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING pilot. The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private certificate, that is clearly against the FARs. Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net... I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...] Is my license in peril in your mind because of that? (I'm a private pilot). Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses, that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113. As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being charged and being compensated at 100%. That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote... I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...] Is my license in peril in your mind because of that? (I'm a private pilot). Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses, that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113. As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being charged and being compensated at 100%. That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here. Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight costs... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
.. . Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight costs... That has nothing to do with the operation being considered here. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks.. sounds like we need our club to review things, and perhaps get
a letter of opinion from the FAA/FSDO and/or possibly change our SOP's. In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base. This sounds like its going to be an interesting meeting this month. Dave Peter Duniho wrote: "Dave S" wrote in message ink.net... I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...] Is my license in peril in your mind because of that? (I'm a private pilot). Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses, that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113. As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being charged and being compensated at 100%. That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here. Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave S" wrote in message
k.net... In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base. If that's your goal, the solution is to make sure you hire a commercial pilot to fly stranded airplanes back. Since you're passing the costs back to the original renter anyway, you should have no problem with that. It's just an extra administrative hassle, is all. You may even be able to find commercial pilots willing to do the task for no other compensation than the free use of the airplane. Hours are hours, after all. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
September issue of Afterburner now on line | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:13 PM |