Rental policy

The lawyers would starve on this one!

The town had one lawyer. He was starving. Another moved in and now they are
both doing a brisk business.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Actually, if you had the two-cents worth all of us have thrown in you
could
afford your own plane!

LOL!

But now you're there, and the
lawyers eat you.

Why? On what basis?


Because you're tasty.

It's a figure of speech, but...You (would have) signed a contract stating you
would perform certain actions under certain circumstances. You are now in
those circumstances (through no fault of your own) and must perform. If you
choose not to, then the FBO can exact payment. If you refuse to pay, the FBO
can sue you or threaten to do so. Breach of contract.

Whether this is smart or not is irrelevant. They can.

So, you're in the hot seat, depending only on their kindness (and the kindness
of their legal advisor, the same one that drew up the contract to begin with)

As you can see, the contract has many ways to be interpreted. That's where
lawyers make money. And that money comes from you.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Bill Denton" wrote in message news:409a9de6$0$3023

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.

Hey, guys, the best thing to do would be to ask the FBO owner to clarify
and, if necessary, have it put in writing.

No point in arguing about it for days if somebody could just pick up the
phone and ask the FBO to explain it. Would like to hear the explanation,
btw.

-c

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

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message news:Unxmc.10069

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.

It could, because the problem could develop while you have the plane.

But that would be after you've started flying it.

Another reason why this is a bad clause, a good advert (for
once) as to why a lawyer is useful (hah!), and why I'd argue
that it is so vague as to be unenforceable -- what, exactly,
does the phrase "before being flown" mean?

I've taken it to mean before you take off on your rental
jaunt. I can see now that some people are (quite reasonably)
interpreting this as taking off on each leg (apologies, Pete).

I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

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.

"gatt" writes:

But what if you fly someplace and, say, the alternator
fails while you're gone? You certainly don't fly back,

Why not? If the return flight is a couple of hours, get the battery
charged up, have someone handprop or use up some battery to crank it,
take off, turn off all the electricals and fly it home. If you need
to enter controlled airspace turn things back on briefly.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
link.net...
"gatt" wrote in message
...
I've taken it to mean before you take off on your rental
jaunt. I can see now that some people are (quite reasonably)
interpreting this as taking off on each leg (apologies, Pete).

I'd argue that my interpretation is correct, because otherwise
the phrase "before being flown" is superfluous. If the plane needs
repair & is away from home, blah blah blah... covers the intent
quite properly -- at least the intent you and Pete place on it.

It's not really a question of when you take off. "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair before being flown..." simply means "If the PIC
determines that the plane needs repair in order to be flown..." Thus, the
phrase "before being flown" is not superfluous, and does not refer to when
(or even if) the PIC flies the plane. You're interpreting the sentence to
mean "If the PIC, before flying the plane, determines that the plane needs
repair...". But it cannot gramatically mean that, because "before being
flown" is an adverbial clause that modifies the verb "needs"; it does not
modify the verb "determines", because the subject of that verb--the PIC--is
not what is being flown.

If the sentence read "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair
before the PIC flies the plane...", it would be ambiguous between the two
interpretations. But as actually written, it refers unambiguously to any
determination by the PIC that the plane is not airworthy, regardless of when
the determination occurs.

--Gary

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:


"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."


I've never seen something like that before. I wouldn't fly there.


It shouldn't really affect you in any case. If you take off in
a plane you know needs to be repaired, you are violating
the FARs as well as the rental policy. Just fly legally and
it won't apply to you.


"if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"

Suppose you take off in a good airplane, land in Kalazazoo, and the
vacuum system dies. Not your fault. You didn't take off (to
Kalamazoo) in a plane that you knew needed repairs; in fact it didn't.
But now you're there, and the lawyers eat you.

Run, don't walk.

Jose





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.