Rental policy

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
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.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:v6Qmc.38494$IG1.2156146@attbi_s04...
Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a
rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation
on
the question?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...00/pc0009.html

Summary: the pilot, even a renter, is the final authority responsible for
ensuring airworthiness. The article, the September 2000 "Pilot Counsel"
column describes an FAA enforcement case where a renter was found at fault
for flying an unairworthy airplane, the annual inspection having been
expired at the time of the flight.

That said, things can break after the logbooks and airplane have been
inspected. Roger's statement regarding "These are not rental cars. Your
responsibility goes far beyond what 99% of rental pilots live up to" is only
true inasumuch as it applies to safety. And frankly, any motorist who does
not perform at least a cursory inspection of a rental car is just as
culpable for any mechanical difficulty that causes an accident as a renter
pilot would be for an airplane that wasn't airworthy.

None of that changes the fact that the *owner* of the airplane is the one
responsible for the costs related to maintenance and repairs. Yes, the
renter is obligated to ensure that the airplane is safe to fly. No, the
renter is NOT obligated to pay for repairs, or even any additional costs
over and above their normal rental costs that are related to maintenance
failures that happen away from the airplane's home base. Not even the cost
of the flight home, no more than the renter of a car would be responsible
for the transport of that car should it break down while in the care of that
renter.

Any pilot who willingly agrees to enter into an agreement that does obligate
them to be responsible had better have a darn good reason for doing so (as
someone else mentioned, maybe the quality or nature of the aircraft is so
great as to justify taking on that responsibility). Otherwise, they are a
fool.

Pete

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
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.

Are you aware of any documented instances of FAA sanctions against a rental
pilot for failing to review logbooks, or any written FDSO interpretation on
the question?

The FARs do not strike me as making a clear statement on this question. They
talk about the PIC's responsibility to ascertain airworthiness (91.7), but
nothing indicates that the expected implementation of this responsibility
goes beyond the sort of pre-flight inspections specified in the aircraft's
POH. There's certainly no stated requirement for the PIC to investigate or
control the quality of the FBO's maintenance.

Apart from the regs, if I felt my safety required me to inspect logbooks and
oversee maintenance, I'd want to do that every time I fly GA as a
passenger--not just when I'm PIC of a rental plane.

--Gary

On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:56:10 -0700, Peter wrote:


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.

Can you imagine a rental car company with such a policy? If Hertz told me
such a thing, I'd laugh in their face. I can understand something like a
24-hour window, just so pilots don't drop their plane off in the middle of
nowhere, every other day. But three days? Come on, that's not
reasonable. Even if the duration is deemed to be reasonable, the wording
is ambigious at best. This may leave the renter unreasonably exposed to
liabilty that the FBO should be covering. The FBO should be charging
rates to account for such problems, when and if they occur. Furthermore,
the language needs to be more explicate so as to detail problems and
schedules which are except (engine failure over weekends or holidays, etc).

As is, I know I sure wouldn't sign such a thing.