Rental policy

"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.

"John Theune" wrote in message
1...
My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and bring
it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your not on
the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't
want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short repair and
then they have to go get it.

Reasonable?

It's not my plane. If something fails, I will hang around for a while, but
certainly not overnight. 3 days? Fuggetaboutit. Around here people have
jobs and work for a living and taking an unexpected 3 days off is out of the
question.

I would NEVER rent from such an outfit.

They are also inviting unsafe operation of their planes and if I saw someone
firsthand doing this I would report it to the nearest FSDO as well as filing
a NASA safety report.

"John Theune" wrote in message
1...
My interpertation of this clause is if you take the plane somewhere and
it breaks, then you must stay for 3 days while it's repaired then bring
it back or else they will charge you to send someone to get it and bring
it back. If it needs more then 3 days to be repaired then your not on
the hook for getting it back. Seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't
want you to leave a plane hundreds of miles way for a short repair and
then they have to go get it.

Reasonable?

It's not my plane. If something fails, I will hang around for a while, but
certainly not overnight. 3 days? Fuggetaboutit. Around here people have
jobs and work for a living and taking an unexpected 3 days off is out of the
question.

I would NEVER rent from such an outfit.

They are also inviting unsafe operation of their planes and if I saw someone
firsthand doing this I would report it to the nearest FSDO as well as filing
a NASA safety report.

I would think that if someone steals the avionics while it is in the
custody of the maintenance shop, they are responsible, not you.

And if the implication is that you blew a cylinder and the repair will
require 5 days, what's the point of staying 3?


"Tony Cox" wrote in
link.net:

"Judah" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure why you need to stay with the plane, though. I think they
are trying to avoid the repair being completed after you leave, and
you not getting back there for 2 "wasted" days to bring it back... Or
maybe they are trying to say that if the repair will take more than 3
days, they will take back responsibility. I could read it either way.

I read it that they want you to provide security. If you don't stay
with the plane for up to 3 days & someone steals the avionics,
you're on the line for up to $1000...;-)

Our "club" is a non-profit org. Thats where the ownership ends. ALL of
our aircraft are privately owned and leased back. The owners bear
maintenance costs with an A&P of their choosing. While other clubs may
differ, in this instance it might be more appropriate to consider our
club a "members only" rental outfit.

I agree that the club situation is not an "apples to apples" comparison
with regards to a traditional FBO.

Truth is, if there were other places that didnt have such a "draconian"
approach to staying with the plane on the same field, I would probably
drift away from a rental agreement such as this. BUT, if that place had
something special to offer (price, stellar condition, a specific model,
etc) that I sought out, then I would probably just agree and go.

This rental policy obviously hasnt put the school in question out of
business.

Dave

Teacherjh wrote:

The club I am with makes no such time stipulation, and states that you
are responsible for the cost of recovery..


A club (as I understand the word) is different. You are all co-owners in some
sense. You (collectively) make the maitanance decisions.

An FBO is different.

Jose

Tony Cox wrote:

I read it that they want you to provide security. If you don't stay
with the plane for up to 3 days & someone steals the avionics,
you're on the line for up to $1000...;-)

They expect me to camp out in the plane with a gun?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

sounds reasonable... but your math is off... I don't see how "the smaller of
$5/mile or $1000 comes up to an $1800 retrieve.. looks like the max cost for
them to retrieve would be $1000

BT

"Robert" wrote in message
...
I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from
the
same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are
old
and always down because something broke yet again.

I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
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.

It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the
PIC
must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible
for
the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive
the
plane."

So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C
airport),
and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
$1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while
it
gets repaired.

Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would
be
responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with
a
bill.

Robert

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.

On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:10:54 -0700, "Robert" wrote:

I received my private last September, and have rented a Cessna 172 from the
same place I completed my training at ever since. Recently, I've been
looking for a new place to rent because the 172's at my current FBO are old
and always down because something broke yet again.

I went to a different FBO yesterday to ask about getting checked out in a
plane there. Initially they looked like a great place to rent from... at
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.

It says "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location, the PIC
must remain with the plane for three (3) days while the plane is being
repaired. The PIC is responsible for all costs of his own lodging, food,
travel expenses, etc. during this three day period. If the PIC elects to
leave the plane during this three day repair period, you are responsible for
the smaller of $5 per mile or $1000 for an FBO staff member to retreive the
plane."

So, basically, if I fly from Long Beach to Santa Barbara (class C airport),
and the plane has an electrical problem to due to fault of my own, and I
decide to squak the plane in Santa Barbara, I have to pay someone about
$1,800 to retrieve the plane if I can't stay with it for three days while it
gets repaired.

Is this an outrageous policy, or is it normal? I could see that I would be
responsible if I damaged the plane, or just decided to leave the plane
somewhere else, but its almost like they are encouraging pilots to fly
planes back home that shouldn't be flown just so they don't get stuck with a
bill.

Robert


Every place I've ever rented from has always picked up the tab if "their"
plane breaks while I'm away. And, although it has not happened to me, I
know of times when the FBO has ferried the pilot back from where the a/c
broke.

There would have to be something pretty special about an a/c at this FBO
for me to be subjected to that kind of provision.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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.