Rental policy

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the
plane
needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away
from
its home location..."

I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the statement
indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the
plane
away from its home location".

You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.

What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
know
that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the
airplane
needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other than
it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"

That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says.

This is why I say just ignore it. Three people, three different
interpretations.
It's unlikely to be enforceable, and a good reason why you *should*
get a lawyer involved in writing a contract.

Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

Actually, we have all been skipping a more relevant point and I didn't feel
like introducing it until now: How does anyone know what the pilot knew
before the flight?

If the pilot doesn't write up a problem and give the write up to the FBO
prior to departing, how could it be established that he knew about the
problem prior to take-off?

Of course, you could always put a clause in the rental agreement stating
that unless the pilot did specific write ups it would be assumed that he
knew about all of the defects. Weird language, I know, but it works!



"Tony Cox" wrote in message
link.net...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Take another look at this statement: "If the PIC determines that the
plane
needs repair before being flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away
from
its home location..."

I don't see how you get that interpretation. Nothing about the
statement
indicates the order of "before being flown" and "the PIC has flown the
plane
away from its home location".

You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.

What this is actually saying is: "If an airplane needs repair, and you
know
that the airplane needs repair, and you fly away knowing that the
airplane
needs repair, and the airplane must be repaired at a location other
than
it's home base, we're going to charge you out the ass!"

That's not what it says at all. It may well be how the statement is
intended (though I doubt it), but it's definitely NOT what it says.

This is why I say just ignore it. Three people, three different
interpretations.
It's unlikely to be enforceable, and a good reason why you *should*
get a lawyer involved in writing a contract.

Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Actually, we have all been skipping a more relevant point and I didn't
feel
like introducing it until now: How does anyone know what the pilot knew
before the flight?

If the pilot doesn't write up a problem and give the write up to the FBO
prior to departing, how could it be established that he knew about the
problem prior to take-off?

Something a previous renter noted (not necessarily on a squark
sheet), but which a pilot should have noticed himself during a
preflight?


Of course, you could always put a clause in the rental agreement stating
that unless the pilot did specific write ups it would be assumed that he
knew about all of the defects. Weird language, I know, but it works!

For the FBO perhaps. I'd not sign an agreement with that in it.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
link.net...
[...]
Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed with
it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The point
is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
control away from the home base.

Avoiding the take off doesn't get the renter out of that requirement of the
contract.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
link.net...
[...]
Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed
with
it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The
point
is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
control away from the home base.

Bah! This thread has surely gone on too long.

The language neither says nor implies anything of the sort. It says quite
plainly "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, ...". Anything after the comma doesn't apply if the condition isn't
met. To spell it out, if the PIC doesn't determine the plane needs repair,
you're not obliged to stay the 3 days, pay the $1000, have your nuts cut
off or anything else that happens to be specified AFTER THAT COMMA.

Actually, as Bill pointed out, how does anyone know what the PIC
knew? You could take off with 1/2 a wing hanging off & you *still*
wouldn't have to worry about this clause as long as you didn't decide
that the plane needed repair. As I said before, a pretty useless condition,
from the FBO's point of view - except that it's obviously scared at least
one person from doing business with them.

Surely you must be yanking my chain ;-)

Tony Cox wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[...]
Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed

with

it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The

point

is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
control away from the home base.


Bah! This thread has surely gone on too long.

The language neither says nor implies anything of the sort. It says quite
plainly "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, ...". Anything after the comma doesn't apply if the condition isn't
met.

Your interpretation appears to be that this clause only applies when the
pilot first decides whether to fly the plane away from the home airport.
But others, including myself, would consider it to apply equally before
any subsequent takeoffs - including one from a distant airport.
I.e. the pilot lands at Timbuktu, eats a sandwich and now comes back to
the plane. He does his preflight and discovers a serious problem that
"needs repair before being flown." Under the contract terms he must
now remain with the plane for up to 3 days while repairs are made or
be liable for up to $1000 of recovery costs.

In fact, I wouldn't consider this clause to have any practical
application on the initial takeoff from the home field since any
pilot who determines that repairs *need* to be done before flight
would not then fly before they are done. By flying he makes it clear
that he didn't determine the repairs to be *necessary* - even if they
may be prudent for safety, required by FARS, etc.

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.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
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 once got some free time in a FBO plane to bring an instructor up to where
another of their planes had gotten left due to a problem to bring it back
after repairs. They had originally sent another plane up there (with
another instructor) to pick up the renter.

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.

They seem to be opening themselves up to some liability. If someone flew
back a plane that had a problem and had an accident, and claimed they felt
unduly pressured by that clause, I am sure an enterprising lawyer could work
that into a fat civil suit.

At the FBO where I helped out (I was a good customer and that's why I got
the opportunity) they always said if something was questionable to call them
and speak to a mechanic and they would always come out to get you if
something was in the least bit unsafe or you were unsure you could handle
the flight due to conditions.

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. I you come to the FAA's attention because of a mechanical failure,
or possibly even a ramp check, they will inquire when and how you did these
things. If you did not do them, they may take your license for a while. If
someone got hurt, failure to have verified these things will be blood in the
water for the lawyers.

These are not rental cars. Your responsibility goes far beyond what 99% of
rental pilots live up to.

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.

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.