The cost sharing - reimbursment - flight for hire mess

I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a
regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief. Ask
a lawyer.

Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess however
because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all over
the place that you just can't look at the FAR's and know what to do. You
will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to FSDO.

You can make the club rule more stringent, of course, but the members
are not going to be happy with that.


We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we
are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to the
FAA or our insurance company that we were right. Cost sharing at the edges
of the envelope isn't critical to any of our members. These rules are
intended to keep members clearly on the right side of the line.

You might have a test for new members that requires them to state what
they think the regs mean, and you could have standards for passing the
test. Then you could keep the test on file to show the feds when it
becomes necessary. Another one to ask a lawyer about.


I can tell you, they would be a lot less happy about that!

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
| I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a
| regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief. Ask
| a lawyer.
|
| Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess
however
| because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all
over
| the place that you just can't look at the FAR's and know what to do. You
| will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to
FSDO.
|

So what? How does this affect the club in any way, shape or form? The rules
affect only individual pilots, not clubs.

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we
are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to
the
FAA or our insurance company that we were right.

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club
rules the issue. Your insurance policy should cover you regardless of any
cost-sharing or other legalities. The only thing that should be open to
question is whether the *pilot* is covered, as long as you clearly require
the pilot to obey all applicable FARs. However, if you start writing new
rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you've opened the
door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it
wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member.

Less is more here. Just as in a checkride oral exam, one shouldn't
volunteer more information than was asked for, you shouldn't volunteer more
rulemaking than is minimally required by your insurance policy and common
sense. Otherwise, you could be held to a higher standard, and found in
violation of that standard.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club
rules the issue.

I agree.

if you start writing new
rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you've opened the
door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it
wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member.

Or the insurance company will point to a clause in your club
policy that says members must comply with club rules, then
use that as a loophole. Check your club policy. Ours
required compliance by members with club rules/bylaws for
coverage. Every rule you add is another possible gotcha, so
make sure you need any rules you add.

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

Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.

Thanks for taking the time. It's been very instructive.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.


Above what?

"A Breath of Fresh Air From the FSDO" Thread.

(I thought it would get lost in this thread which has grown pretty long.)

--
Roger Long
Tom S. wrote in message
...

"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.


Above what?

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
"A Breath of Fresh Air From the FSDO" Thread.

(I thought it would get lost in this thread which has grown pretty long.)


The only thing (below) that I saw (above) was the message number and header
data.


--
Roger Long
Tom S. wrote in message
...

"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.


Above what?