Rental policy

"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.

"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

Just to clarify. I didn't mean to imply any financial responsibility for
the maintenance. Only the determination that the aircraft is safe and
legal.

I can't believe the contract language that started this all was actually
intended to make the renter financially responsible for unforeseeable
breakdowns. If it really is, the Darwin effect should take care of that
FBO.

If the language was intended to be reasonable, the PIC carrying out his duty
under the FAR's to verify the airworthiness should uncover anything
foreseeable. If he calls up from East Podunk, says he is stuck because fuel
is pouring out of the wing, and it turns out there is a squawk in the
records reporting fuel stains or drip, he should pay the excess cost of the
FBO to get it back home and in service. He shouldn't have accepted the
aircraft in the first place. If the leak just started with no prior warning
or indication, the FBO should cover everything.

The situation I think this is really aimed at is the one like the place I
used to rent. Once you were checked out, you could just put your name on
the schedule. You might pick up the plane just after another pilot without
the shop having checked it out in the meantime. If the previous pilot had
squawked the hypothetical fuel leak above, and you decided to roll the dice,
it should be you not the FBO that pays if you lose.

If the FBO came to feel that they had to check out the plane between each
rental, cost for everybody would go up. This language, made less ambiguous,
might be a better alternative.

--
Roger Long

"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