If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
John T wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message .net... "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble. Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he? IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable one). There's little evidence that the FAA would come after "Mark" if this is a rare occurrence, but the possibility of an accident/incident and subsequent FAA enforcement action and potential denial of insurance coverage does cause *some* people to hesitate. But then Mike Rapoport is assuming that "Mark" doesn't already have a Pt135 certificate... Russell Kent |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Russell Kent" wrote in message
IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable one). It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a stranded plane. Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit at the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share of the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Wouldn't the original pilot who got stranded at that airport have accrued this rental fee regardless if the alternator failed? He had to return, right? I assume the $270 rental fee is calculated based on flying time, not ground time while awaiting repairs? Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane broke. Mike MU-2 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination
until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there. Mike MU-2 "John T" wrote in message ws.com... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message .net... "Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble. Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"John T" wrote in message ws.com... "Russell Kent" wrote in message IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable one). It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a stranded plane. You are not doing "favors" when you charge for it (even if it is unprofitable) Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit at the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share of the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91. This flight absolutely does not fall under Part 91. Mike MU-2 -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport ) wrote:
Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent on the return flight? That is what I was saying. However, upon reflection, I would like to retract that statement. It is not his fault that the airplane broke. Agreed. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
It is not his fault that the airplane broke.
Agreed. As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault when the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But it's still the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so that other people can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club members to come get the plane. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there. OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport? In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern. Is he still in violation of Part 91? I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of transportation to/from stranded planes. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"John T" wrote in message
ws.com... [...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport? No, he's not saying that. I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of transportation to/from stranded planes. No problem, because they don't say that. The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of purpose". If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his time and money however he likes. Pete |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane broke. Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not their fault the plane broke. While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right? Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This does not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case. Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the club covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in charging him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for the plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary). -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
September issue of Afterburner now on line | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:13 PM |