Sharing a plane with friends

[KSMooniac]

I'd re-think the always top-off the fuel policy...it is rarely needed, reduces performance, and in some cases limits your payload. If I were going on a 2 hour trip with some friends I'd hate to find the plane full of fuel I don't need and the inability to carry butts or bags I do need.

If it were me, I'd install a fuel totalizer and just include fuel values in your use log, and bill accordingly at some reasonable fuel rate that satisfies everyone.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

I like the idea of this kind of "partnership". I don't want to share ownership with anyone in my airplane and I don't have to from a financial position. But if I was ever in a situation where I couldn't put a regular 10 or so hours per month on the plane, I'd be looking to add a friend or two to my insurance who I'd be comfortable with, to fly my plane. It would be the same type of arrangement but probably with less legal paperwork.

We'll all be interested to hear how it's working out after the first year of flying.

[chrixxer]

4 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

I'd re-think the always top-off the fuel policy...it is rarely needed, reduces performance, and in some cases limits your payload. If I were going on a 2 hour trip with some friends I'd hate to find the plane full of fuel I don't need and the inability to carry butts or bags I do need.

If it were me, I'd install a fuel totalizer and just include fuel values in your use log, and bill accordingly at some reasonable fuel rate that satisfies everyone.

That's the current FBO's policy, and especially without a totalizer it makes sense. We may revisit once the engine monitors etc are in. The simple answer to the full fuel problem is to put in a reservation requesting not-full tanks, which is provided for. Works pretty good so far...

[chrixxer]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

I like the idea of this kind of "partnership". I don't want to share ownership with anyone in my airplane and I don't have to from a financial position. But if I was ever in a situation where I couldn't put a regular 10 or so hours per month on the plane, I'd be looking to add a friend or two to my insurance who I'd be comfortable with, to fly my plane. It would be the same type of arrangement but probably with less legal paperwork.

We'll all be interested to hear how it's working out after the first year of flying.

That's pretty much it exactly. I get busy at work or life otherwise intervenes, I don't want the plane to sit. Likewise, planes that fly regularly run better and squawks are caught sooner. I'll be chronicling the experience, don't worry!

[carusoam]

Mooney's are designed with great flexibility.

- full fuel for Looong X-countries...

-or-

- full passengers for maximum family fun flying

 

Using an accurate WnB app is going to be important.

If everyone leaves the tanks full, it can be pretty limiting to who sits in the back.

Rental planes don't typically get fuel for so many hours of flight. Using the rental's agreement may come up short here.

If short on having fuel instrumentation aka totalizer or digital level sensors, you can all learn to stick the tank...

- include some transition training bullet points.

- running out of fuel is bad

- running out of runway is bad

- being over-weight like having a fifth passenger is bad

- flying VFR into IMC is bad

- flying into icing conditions is bad

- steep turns at low airspeeds is bad

Ordinary PP thoughts, no legal experience whatsoever...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited May 13, 2017 by carusoam

[chrixxer]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

Ordinary PP thoughts, no legal experience whatsoever...

Did I mention two of the guys are CFIIs: one's a thousand hour commercial pilot and Cherokee 180 owner; the other has ~750 hours, 150 of them in an Ovation. A third is about my age, instrument rated, with a full logbook chronicling gobs of time in Cherokees and Arrows and his flying club's 172s, 182, and 210. Not n00bs.

Dipsticking the tank isn't a bad idea. Is there a pre-calibrated one, or would we have to "roll our own"?

(I regularly fly an SR22 owned by two partners and, during summer months when Junior is home from college, one partner's son. The partners' arrangement also calls for it to be hangared with full fuel - which is kind of a PITA, that IO-550 can be difficult to hot start. Junior almost never refuels it, a source of friction between the partners.)

[Godfather]

Good luck on your business adventure. I'm sure it will work out fine with all the rental options available (lowers scheduling conflicts).  Partnership did not work for me because all the nice weekend days everyone wanted to fly...hard to take it for the weekend. Also people had different opinions on what was full tanks...

try to keep the price very low or upgrade the plane to differentiate between the other rag (or whatever you called them) rental choices. 

[amillet]

My first airplane (N201XG) was a three member non-profit corporation.  Bylaws provided that each pilot was priority pilot for 10 days (I had 21st to end of month) if you wanted to fly any other time you just called the priority pilot for permission. In five years there was only a time or two there was any conflict. 

[Vance Harral]

19 hours ago, chrixxer said:

So maybe the last user couldn't have parked the plane with full fuel, and just came back from, say, Phoenix. The next guy has to fill the tanks himself, which he shouldn't have to do - his three trips around the pattern for currency shouldn't cost him that fuel.

One way to deal with this sort of thing is to bill a wet rate instead of using a dry lease, based on the cost per gallon at the home airport and typical fuel burn.  In this case the company always reimburses for fuel purchases, rather than only when the top-off rule isn't followed.

There is a tiny amount of "unfairness" in this due to variations in actual gallons-per-hour used by different operators, but it's trivial.  In exchange, administration gets a lot simpler.  In particular, it makes it easier to deal with situations like the fuel pump being closed, or the case where operator #1 asks operator #2 to leave the tanks down a bit because the next flight is going to be heavily loaded.  The operators already have money going into and coming out of some sort of escroe account to pay the dry rate, so it's really no more overhead to deal with fuel reimbursements at the same time the flight is "billed" - just have everyone clip fuel receipts in the same logbook you use to track tach/hobbes time.  We've run our partnership this way for a long time and it's worked well.

[kortopates]

Personally, I think the contract is way over regulated. It brings into question as to whether the insurance policy is covering the renters. Of course legally it is, yet why the contract contains so many listed restrictions which the insurance company does not care about just leaves me with the impression that after the insurance company settles a claim with the owner and if the owner is not entirely satisfied with the result they may simply go after the rental pilot using one of the many provisions in the contract. Meaning a renter is going to need additional insurance for the additional risk the owner may be trying to protect themselves from the renter - no thanks. Further, the lack of mutual respect shown for rental pilots time in scheduling, and many of the superfluous restrictions including needing owner permission to schedule an overnight trip and further restrictions on local airports (big bear, catalina etc) when this is not a flight school are all a bit over the top IMO. It all reads to me like an owner wanting to subsidize their airplane ownership experience but without any inconvenience in the process. But I am no doubt jaded after belonging to the most successful and largest non-profit flying club for many years with a very large fleet of aircraft. In contrast, the members rules or bylaws are only 2 pages of text compared to your 6. Members are able to make up to 5 reservations for scheduling aircraft at a time and despite a lot of training usage (with the trainers) there is only a 1 hour daily minimum for renters taking the aircraft out of town. The owner leases their aircraft to the club at a fair yet very competitive rate (there are over 30 aircraft across 4 neighboring airports) but the owners get no special privileges - i.e. they can't bump another members scheduling of the aircraft. I can add Members view any aircraft relationship as an investment of their time and money. All the same models of planes have different equipment installed and have their own idiosyncrasies. Therefore, renters shy away from owners that are not constantly keeping up on squawks and maintenance. There are  plenty of things the owners don't like too, such as being hard on the battery by running the radios before startup to save on the hobbs, overdoing the brakes on short field landings and spotting a tire etc. These are not unknowns at all but purposely being left out of the bylaws because they can't effectively be regulated in the bylaws. So owners factor these cost into their rental rates. Just try to equitably enforce a rule about flat spotting a tire - the reality is the person doing it will likely not fess up even they even noticed it (they usually don't)  and then it goes unnoticed for a number of flights. The club looses plenty of members from much more serious issues that should cause member terminations, but an accidental flat spotting of a tire, re-fueling policies and bumping rental schedules should not necessarily be ones to cause members to leave. Its far easier to rent at a wet rate than a dry rate.  Yes a dry rate enables renters to choose to fly a bit more economically by being more careful about choosing the airports they visit and take on fuel but the hassle in a dry refueling policy is typically too much for all involved. Wet rates keep it simple.

No question one can't write by laws or a contract to cover every contingency. But it is not executed with mutual respect for all parties it seems it serve more as point of friction than simply delineating the really important issues. Just my opinion from years of experience of flying with the most successful flying club in the country.

[chrixxer]

5 hours ago, Godfather said:

Good luck on your business adventure. I'm sure it will work out fine with all the rental options available (lowers scheduling conflicts).  Partnership did not work for me because all the nice weekend days everyone wanted to fly...hard to take it for the weekend. Also people had different opinions on what was full tanks...

try to keep the price very low or upgrade the plane to differentiate between the other rag (or whatever you called them) rental choices. 

Price will be low(ish), covering costs + reserves. The other rentals are leasebacks (school and owner each get their cut; think $169/hr set for a gear dragger, $189/hr for an Arrow). Avionics upgrades are coming, but not immediately. 

[chrixxer]

10 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

To the OP, just to clarify, I wasn't questioning either your legal prowess or you or your "partners'" flying skills or qualifications.  My concern is with you as a first time aircraft owner possibly with unrealistic expectations; and those concerns are compounded by the history of your Mooney.  You really should research that with concerns far beyond just that it will fly and pass an annual inspection, which was roughly the standard of care you previously expressed.

FYI, I'm acquainted with the history of this aircaft, and will be having it gone over thoroughly by "my" A&P at my home field first thing. He's a guy I trust (I've represented him in litigation - unrelated to his business acumen; he was attempting to intervene in federal litigation between the local airport sponsor and the federal government - and the guys who will be (eventually) flying 4BE with me fly flight school / flying club planes maintained by his shop daily. (Happy to PM you with details if you'd like to know more.) My budget for this purchase is comfortably in excess of what I paid, and I anticipate possible issues. This is my first plane, but it's not my first large purchase of possibly questionable provenance; my Porsche was a repo'd recovery I got for a steal (though it did, sooner than I would have liked, require a transmission, which was hard to source, but has otherwise given me 70,000+ miles of faithful service), and my family took over a 50' C&C with an undisclosed cracked mast (one of the stays had snapped and been replaced, evidently, with - also evidently - no inspection beyond, maybe, the most superficial).

That's part of the reason why I'm holding off on any big avionics upgrades until she's been gone over thoroughly and flown for a year. Keep my reserves intact (and not invest any more than necessary in an "unknown").

Meanwhile, if I seem overly eager, it's because I am. The auction ended last month and I've been mostly waiting to go pick her up (my schedule doesn't permit me to get away until next week). So I've been plotting, scheming, researching avionics, planning my dream panel, etc. The LLC is in place, but I'm the only member so far. The bank account is open. The insurance is bound. The flight legs are in ForeFlight. I'm brushing up on my IFR (my rating's 8 months old; I'm current, but I've only flown IFR locally with one trip back from DVT ... and I want to be ready with fresh review of the stuff I don't use regularly around here). Etc.

But y'all are seeing only bits and pieces, and aren't privy to the conversations I've had with Jerry, the logbooks and invoices etc. I've reviewed (as has my A&P), etc. etc.

I've read the NTSB report from Panama City. I've got the FAA CD for the aircraft and I've read every word of its documented history. Am I a little apprehensive? Yes, but no more so than with any other aircraft of this age in this price range I'd buying. Maybe even less (I was looking at an F with no logs and "hangar rash" that made me a little leery, even though it was being flown on long cross-countries (Indiana to New Mexico) every couple of weeks or so, etc.)

If I suddenly stop posting here, I was dead wrong. But I don't expect that to happen, and I have, I earnestly believe, about as good an idea of "what I'm getting into" as possible.