Rental policy

In article ,
Robert wrote:
least until I took a look at their rental policies and procedures. I really
didn't like one of them, but am wondering if it is "just me" or if it is a
normal policy with most FBO's.

Every "home made" contract I've ever read has wacky clauses like this.
They almost read like a narrative of a past bad experience the person
writing the contract had.

As others have pointed out, don't be surprised if you interpret FBO
rental agreements to discourage cross country or overnight flights.
I don't own a plane because it's cheaper, I own a plane because I hate
renting (for trips) so much that I never do it. They're a pain to
schedule and even after paying the daily minimums you get hostility from
the FBO and instructors who wanted to use the plane.

On the other hand, as an owner if my plane broke down away from home I'd
have to stay with it, return to it, or get it ferried home if it broke
down. The only advantage I have over renting there is that I get to call
the shots on maintenance with an eye toward avoiding that problem.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
[...] you're supposed to remain with the plane
for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
repaired is no worse than it was when you took off.

Who said anything about "what needs to be repaired is no worse than it was
when you took off"? It's a given that you would leave the plane at the FBO
if it weren't airworthy there. The question is what happens when it becomes
known to be unairworthy after arriving somewhere else.

Pete

"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. A
statement that says something along the lines of what you claim it says
would read something like this:

"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."

Without the time-ordering, all the statement says that if the plane's
broken, you have to stay with it. Regardless of when it broke.

Pete

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

If you take off in a plane you know needs to be repaired,
you are violating the FARs as well as the rental policy.

If anyone takes of in a plane that needs to be repaired this
armchair pilot and lurker says you are dumber than a
sack of hammers and a prime candidate for the darwin award.

That depends on the repair. Would you take off in a rental plane with a
badly-fit door seal that makes a whistling noise? What about one with a U/S
ADF when you're flying VFR? Neither one of those is Darwin material or a
violation of regs (since the aircraft is still airworthy).


All the best,


David

It looks absolutely reasonable to me but only because of the first line.

Few renters realize just how responsible they are for the condition of the
aircraft. As far as the FAA is concerned, when the wheels leave the ground,
you are like the captain of a ship. The buck, including the maintenance
buck, stops with you.

If the engine quits and you end up in a field and it turns out it quit
because of an AD that was not complied with, the FAA will want to know if
you reviewed the logbooks and verified that all AD's were CW. If the logs
say CW and they are able to determine that it wasn't, they'll go back to the
shop. If you say, "Huh, I thought the FBO took care of all that.", they may
lift your license for a while. They might even lift it if they just ramp
checked you and found something wrong with the plane.

If you aren't ready to take the responsibility, you shouldn't be in the air.

Of course, tell most FBO's that you'd like to take the logs for the plane
you are going to rent home overnight to review them and they'll look at you
like you were asking for the first four hours free.

--
Roger Long

Hmm, reading Peter's post above dissecting the time order of the wording, I
guess I would want a clarification before renting. It looks to me as though
it was written so that a renter rolling the dice by flying away from the
homebase with a known problem would be responsible. Peter is right though,
if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport and found fuel running
out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold him to the rest of it.

If the "being flown" in the first line was replace by "departing the home
base" or "accepting the aircraft for flight" I would consider it reasonable.

--
Roger Long

My comments will be interspersed:


"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".

I didn't get that interpretation; that language comes directly from the
rental agreement! And while the language may be a bit sloppy, the intent is
perfectly obvious. If the pilot knows something is wrong before he flies, he
would obviously have that information after he has flown.



You and Tony need to read the statement more carefully.


May I first suggest that it is you who needs 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. A
statement that says something along the lines of what you claim it says
would read something like this:

"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."

Without the time-ordering, all the statement says that if the plane's
broken, you have to stay with it. Regardless of when it broke.

Pete

The problem is that you haven't the slightest idea what the intent of this
section of the agreement is. It is saying that if you are aware of a problem
with the aircraft, yet you fly the aircraft anyway, and that flight
exacerbates the previously existing problem, necessitating a repair before
the aircraft can returned to it's base, you will be responsible for costs
associated with that repair. As I said, the language in the rental agreement
is not the best in the world, but this is how that would be interpreted.

taking the
plane to places far away for extended periods, and instead preferred
that you just took day trippers.

A couple years ago I wanted to rent the Cub for three days to go to
the Sentimental Journey in Lock Haven. They had no problem with the
hours (I would have put on quite a few) but wouldn't let the plane go
overnight on a weekend in the summer, so as not to inconvenience
students and renters.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, and
the PIC subsequently flies the plane away from its home location..."

Good point. The original poster should insert "subsequently" and sign
the agreement.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
[...] you're supposed to remain with the plane
for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
repaired is no worse than it was when you took off.

Who said anything about "what needs to be repaired is no worse than it was
when you took off"?

I did, but only as an illustration as to how the clause could
be interpreted.

The question is what happens when it becomes
known to be unairworthy after arriving somewhere else.

Well, if it wasn't broken when you took off, the clause
hasn't anything to say on the matter. Otherwise, who knows?
The clause says nothing about 'airworthiness'. Don't take
off when things 'need repair' and it won't be an issue.