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 ;-)

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/

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

You made the statement: "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" is not correct.

The wording in that section would only apply if the pilot knew there was a
fuel leak (or something similar or related) prior to flying the aircraft.

If the pilot was not aware of a fuel system or related problem prior to
taking off, he would not be liable under this section of the rental
agreement. However, I would imagine there would be other sections covering
this type of situation.



"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
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

"Bill Denton" wrote:

You made the statement: "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" is not correct.


"If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before
being flown, .. "

I come back from lunch at a distant airport and the aircraft
is leaking fuel. I've now determined it needs repair and I
haven't yet flown (home.)

" and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home
location,"

I've previously flown the plane to the "distant airport."

I agree with Peter - the wording seems to cover someone who
finds out at a remote location that he needs repair before
coming home. At best, it's ambiguous.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.