Am I way off base here....

cleared4theoption

cleared4theoption

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
363
Location
Flowery Branch, GA
Display Name
Display name:
Jeremy
So I just heard from my instructor...he says that the owner of the flight school I train at wants me to pay 100 dollars for the tire replacement on the plane I soloed in..

Back story:
During my first solo, I messed up on my first landing...I locked the brakes pretty hard, and left a lot of rubber on the runway...one of the tires had the steel belt showing.
It was just a brain fart...I had gotten so used to doing touch and gos...that, combined with the stress of my first solo, and the fact that, for some reason, I was obsessed with turning off at the first taxiway...anyway...

I paid an extra 2.50 an hour for the 10,000$ hull insurance, besides, isn't replacing tires due to new student pilots messing up kind of an expected operating expense??:dunno:

Am I off-base in thinking I shouldn't be expected to pay this 100$
 
I would just pay it. Do you want to put your relationship with the school at risk over $100?
 
I think it's bad business for them to expect you to pay for the tire.

But I don't think new students should be doing touch-and-gos either, so what do I know?
 
jesse said:
I would just pay it. Do you want to put your relationship with the school at risk over $100?
Click to expand...

What about them putting their relationship with a client at risk who would potentially be spending several thousand more dollars to get his PPL...plus years of renting planes afterwards...over 100$

There are other places to train...
 
I agree with both post above.
I think asking you to pay is bad business.
I also would just pay it.

Then look for some where else to spend my money. If you like your instructor I would finish up my training then move.
 
cleared4theoption said:
What about them putting their relationship with a client at risk who would potentially be spending several thousand more dollars to get his PPL...plus years of renting planes afterwards...over 100$

There are other places to train...
Click to expand...


Maybe. Rental fleet is quite thin, lately.

Is there any sort of contract you signed when you started? Might be language in there about damage or wear beyond normal...?

Likely the tires are GY Flight Trainers -- $90 or so...
 
I guess it would depend on what shape the tires were in before you left the rubber on the ground. If management is saying they expected another 6 months out of the tires, and you flatspotted them, then yeah, pay up. Since they're about $200 a piece, you're not being asked to pay the whole thing. On the other hand, if you think they were pretty well worn and about do, then I guess it would depend on how old they are.
If you don't pay, what's the school's recourse? If they pretty much "own" you, and you can't leave (money on deposit, etc), then you're kind of stuck anyway.
Leased planes, like leased cars, take some serious abuse; more so since they mostly have students flying them. A certain amount of wear is expected. It depends on whether they think you caused more than your fair share.
 
dmccormack said:
Maybe. Rental fleet is quite thin, lately.

Is there any sort of contract you signed when you started? Might be language in there about damage or wear beyond normal...?

Likely the tires are GY Flight Trainers -- $90 or so...
Click to expand...
Where I am at, I am already driving 30 miles to the nearest flight school...there are several others with comparable prices within the same distance.

As far as the wear...wouldn't the 10,000 hull insurance I payed for cover it?

I just really feel like this guy is trying to take advantage of me.
 
cleared4theoption said:
Where I am at, I am already driving 30 miles to the nearest flight school...there are several others with comparable prices within the same distance.

As far as the wear...wouldn't the 10,000 hull insurance I payed for cover it?

I just really feel like this guy is trying to take advantage of me.
Click to expand...
I am sure the deductible is by far greater than the $100 tire. They won't be making a claim over a tire.
 
cleared4theoption said:
Where I am at, I am already driving 30 miles to the nearest flight school...there are several others with comparable prices within the same distance.

As far as the wear...wouldn't the 10,000 hull insurance I payed for cover it?

I just really feel like this guy is trying to take advantage of me.
Click to expand...

Nah -- Hull has a deductible... and is usually 80% of the actual hull value when the wreck occurs.
 
Small flying schools are just as desperate for money as most other small businesses and government agencies. It's just the times. People are looking for any way to save or earn money that they can.

From my own experience with a small flying school, I would advise you to find a private instructor and rent and airplane from a club.

Your school sounds like they are suffering financially and it would not be in their best interests to take you to a check ride anytime soon. Explore other options, but pay the hundred dollars.

John
 
On one hand, Its only $100.

On the other hand, this is the scummy type of behavior of flight schools that would make me leave and find another one.

On the other hand, not paying this is one of the things that drives pricing higher for other renters/students.

Personally, what I'd do is tell the owner that you will pay the $100, but let him know that you've taken your last flight with the flight school. I suspect he'll eat the $100 pretty quickly. I'd also explain to him that tires wear out, they're a normal wear and tear item, and whether you mucked it up by locking the brakes or not, they'd have to be replaced sooner or later eventually.

Now, if you make a habit of doing it (that is, if it happens again before you finish your lessons), then you should probably be on the hook.
 
If it's the flight school I think it is, it doesn't really surprise me. They've charged people in the past for flat-spotting tires when they tried to exit at Taxiway G while landing on 25 at LZU. It's about 800', so I can understand that. But for a student just making a goof...part of doing business IMO.

And yes, there are other places to train.
 
The flight school I used for PP was a one man shop and he had sample tires and note at the entrance that you would be on the hook if you locked the brakes.

Of course I started the year after he had a guy come home on his first solo XC and land hard enough to have a prop strike.

The school with multiple planes I used for the IR did not have any notice on responsibilty for tire wear.
 
In these current economic times, businesses are surviving on little or no margins. For many more money is going out the door than coming in. The FBO has no good choice. They can eat the cost, pass the cost on to the one responsible or raise prices and try and pass the cost on to all their customers (I don't want to be a customer paying for your tire.) Either way the FBO loses.

Does the $100 dollar charge even cover the cost of the tire and labor to change it? let alone the revenues lost because the plane was down.

If you rented a car and damaged it would you take the same position and be upset when you were charged?

Just pay the 100 bucks and be happy your not buying a ground looped airplane. It won't be the last $100 you lose to aviation:thumbsup:
 
I'd ask 'em to review the logs (with you) and discuss how long the tire had been on the plane, and thus, how much expected life it had remaining when you gave it a haircut. Make a fair compromise deal.
 
Tell them to buy the tire, but you will provide the labor (yourself) to replace it for them. Being supervised of course.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, if you don't pay it, you'll know why the rental rates are going up next week.
Click to expand...
I think that argument only holds so much water. Airplanes will wear in rental and one would be a fool not to have a price that permits fixing that wear while still operating at a profit. If a business couldn't eat $100 without raising prices on someone that they're likely to do $10,000 in business with..they've already got some issues.

That said. If I was renting an airplane and blew the tire out because I was too heavy on the brakes I'd pay for the tire.
 
jesse said:
I think that argument only holds so much water. Airplanes will wear in rental and one would be a fool not to have a price that permits fixing that wear while still operating at a profit. If a business couldn't eat $100 without raising prices on someone that they're likely to do $10,000 in business with..they've already got some issues.
Click to expand...
To an extent. But if they figure their prices based on no unforeseen damage premature to the expected life of the components in order to keep the prices low for their customers, those prices are going up if they don't collect from those who damage those components.

That said. If I was renting an airplane and blew the tire out because I was too heavy on the brakes I'd pay for the tire.
Click to expand...
In this day and age, that sort of acceptance of responsibility is regrettably rare.
 
swingwing said:
In these current economic times, businesses are surviving on little or no margins. For many more money is going out the door than coming in. The FBO has no good choice. They can eat the cost, pass the cost on to the one responsible or raise prices and try and pass the cost on to all their customers (I don't want to be a customer paying for your tire.) Either way the FBO loses.

Does the $100 dollar charge even cover the cost of the tire and labor to change it? let alone the revenues lost because the plane was down.
Click to expand...

But with tough times, the FBO can't really afford to alienate a customer (with the associated revenue loss), who will probably also tell others about his unfavorable experience.

If you rented a car and damaged it would you take the same position and be upset when you were charged?
Click to expand...

Hertz doesn't offer drivers ed, though.
 
cleared4theoption said:
As far as the wear...wouldn't the 10,000 hull insurance I payed for cover it?
Click to expand...

Is that one of the usual 'non owned' policies, like the ones you get through Avemco or a couple of other insurers ?

They likely exclude 'wear and tear' items such as tires, then again sometimes they pay for stuff just to keep the customer happy. But anytime when dealing with insurance, you have to be aware that anything they pay for you is listed as an 'event' in their system, no matter how small the damage was. After a couple of 'events', either your rates go up or you get a non-renewal.

If you really trashed an otherwise decent tire that had a couple of other students left on it, paying the $100 sounds like a fair resolution to the issue. If you change flight-schools over this issue, the setback in your training will cost you probably more than those hundred bucks.
 
swingwing said:
Does the $100 dollar charge even cover the cost of the tire and labor to change it? let alone the revenues lost because the plane was down.
Click to expand...
We told the dispatcher about it, and the tire was fixed in time for the next student's scheduled flight

swingwing said:
If you rented a car and damaged it would you take the same position and be upset when you were charged?
Click to expand...
I think the more correct analogy would be: If I were taking a drivers ed class, and didn't have my license, and hit a pothole too fast and blew a tire...do you really think the Driver's Ed people would try to hit me for the cost of a new tire...they take the liability of allowing a non licensed driver in the car.
 
Ron Levy said:
To an extent. But if they figure their prices based on no unforeseen damage premature to the expected life of the components in order to keep the prices low for their customers, those prices are going up if they don't collect from those who damage those components.
Click to expand...

If they've got things so pared down that a $100 tire makes a difference, what happens when they find a cracked engine mount at the next 100 hour?

In this day and age, that sort of acceptance of responsibility is regrettably rare.
Click to expand...

If the OP had his PP certificate and flat-spotted a tire, there's no question he should pay. But since he's just soloed, not so much, even though it's a boneheaded error.
 
I've been thinking about this for a bit but I think you left out an important bit of information. What was the condition of the tires at the time? If the tires were old and almost ready for a change I'd get pretty miffed about having to replace it. If it was a new tire that otherwise would not have needed to be replaced, I'd gladly pay the $100 as I caused additional wear.
 
cleared4theoption said:
I think the more correct analogy would be: If I were taking a drivers ed class, and didn't have my license, and hit a pothole too fast and blew a tire...do you really think the Driver's Ed people would try to hit me for the cost of a new tire...they take the liability of allowing a non licensed driver in the car.
Click to expand...
Driver's Ed doesn't send you out solo as the "driver in command."
 
Ron Levy said:
Driver's Ed doesn't send you out solo as the "driver in command."
Click to expand...
No, they don't. I was merely replying to what I felt was a bad analogy.
Comparing soloing as part of your training to a fully licensed driver renting a car is, well, it's nowhere near the same.

I am not trying to shirk responsibility, I'm not even disagreeing with the fact that the company has the right to try and collect this money from me. Like was said before...If I were a fully licensed pilot and rented a plane and ruined a tire...absolutley I would own up and pay for it. I'm not even saying I wont pay for it now.
I look at it like this. Tires wearing down should be an operating expense that the company plans for. If this company is operating their profit margins so razor thin, that not getting this 100$ will put them under, then I don't think I want to fly with them. The other scenario is that they are trying to just milk an extra 100$ out of me for something that was done in the process of LEARNING how to fly. They are hoping that I will just pay it.
And, it may be "just 100$" to some people, but not to me. I am flat broke. I am looking at getting an extra job just to help pay for this lifelong dream. I'm not saying this to look for pity. My point is, that that 100$ comes out of my money for my next lesson. I am bassically paying literally "as I go" and every dollar makes a difference.
 
Measure the tread depth of a new tire. Measure the tread thickness of the damaged tire. Pay him the pro-rated amount for the new tire plus a fair labor price for the replacement. Next time stay off the brakes, unless you are about to hit something unpleasant.
If the tire was brand new, $100 is a bargain.
I think you might try even getting a discount for pre-paying a block time arrangement (I got 10% during my training) and that saved me about $350 in 1994. I pre-paid $500 ahead and flew it off. When I got down to about $50 credit left, I would give the $500 more. That might get your $100 back and make you and the FBO come out ahead in the long run. I wouldn't go too far in debt though, they may go belly up and take the cash with them.
 
ron22 said:
I agree with both post above.
I think asking you to pay is bad business.
I also would just pay it.
Click to expand...
I would ask the owner to give you a contract. Offer to guarantee rental revenue of $x per month for y months and then he waives the tire fee. It is likely you will fly that much anyway....

-Skip
 
Among the things you are paying that school to teach you is to take responsibility for your actions.

Sounds like you are in some denial. You are not denying you caused the problem, nevertheless, you are denying responsibility for the expense. What happens with the next problem? Do you say, "Well you ought to expect a student to lose control and take out a taxi light?"

When do you become a real pilot and responsible for what you do with your airplane, whether you own, rent, or are paid to fly?
 
AuntPeggy said:
When do you become a real pilot and responsible for what you do with your airplane, whether you own, rent, or are paid to fly?
Click to expand...

Harsh, out of line, and utterly reprehensible, Aunt Peggy. He's just as much a real pilot as any other solo student, maybe moreso because he recognized immediately that he made a mistake.

As for paying for it? Maintenance is the owner/operator's responsibility.

I can't imagine anyone calling you out for making (the right) a decision when it comes to financial responsibility. I'm surprised.
 
I remember when I first started wiring (first week or so) we were mounting light fixtures. I drilled a hole through the back of a fixture into the ballast,the boss took the cost of the ballast out of my check about a 1/2 a days pay at the time it pis**d me off at the time because I was so careless. I wasen't mad at him just myself,he was right and I never did it again in 45 years. You screwed up tell him your sorry it will not happen again and write the check. It is a cheap lesson that you will not forget if it costs you a few bucks. Cumma-matata
 
cleared4theoption said:
I look at it like this. Tires wearing down should be an operating expense that the company plans for. If this company is operating their profit margins so razor thin, that not getting this 100$ will put them under, then I don't think I want to fly with them. The other scenario is that they are trying to just milk an extra 100$ out of me for something that was done in the process of LEARNING how to fly. They are hoping that I will just pay it.
Click to expand...
The way I look at it you pretty much had your mind made up before you started this thread and were looking for affirmation of your views. In this case you found out that there is another side to the story and not everyone is in agreement, in fact I think it's split pretty evenly. In my view, occasional flat-spotted tires should be considered a cost of doing business, especially at a flight school. One exception would be if you did something completely out of line for your skill level which is hard for all of us to judge. The other exception is if there is something in the flight school policy which addresses damage like this. As others have pointed out, this would not be considered "hull damage" and in any case I'm sure that $100 is well under the deductible. Only you can decide how big an issue to make about paying for it or not, though.

Good luck with the rest of your lessons. I'm sure you learned something about using the brakes from this incident.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Among the things you are paying that school to teach you is to take responsibility for your actions.

Sounds like you are in some denial. You are not denying you caused the problem, nevertheless, you are denying responsibility for the expense. What happens with the next problem? Do you say, "Well you ought to expect a student to lose control and take out a taxi light?"

When do you become a real pilot and responsible for what you do with your airplane, whether you own, rent, or are paid to fly?
Click to expand...

Wow...
Classy...

BTW, I don't need a flight school to teach me to take responsibility for my actions...
My mommy and daddy taught me that a long time ago.
 
SkyHog said:
Harsh, out of line, and utterly reprehensible, Aunt Peggy. He's just as much a real pilot as any other solo student, maybe moreso because he recognized immediately that he made a mistake.

As for paying for it? Maintenance is the owner/operator's responsibility.

I can't imagine anyone calling you out for making (the right) a decision when it comes to financial responsibility. I'm surprised.
Click to expand...
Harsh: yes. Out of line: possibly over the top. Reprehensible: I don't think so. As a solo student, someone made the decision that the OP is trustworthy and capable. We all made mistakes on our first solos. That's what it is about. We assess the mistakes and add a little more into our "Experience" sack while drawing out a little more from the "Luck" sack. The most important thing is to learn and own the mistakes.

Legally, I'm sure the operator/owner is responsible for the damage. Morally and ethically the OP is responsible. By coming here and asking the question, he is trying to duck that ethical stricture by enrolling us as enablers. To me, it isn't about $100. It is about standing up and owning the problem. It is also about recognizing a hazardous attitude before it gets you into real trouble.

I'm sorry I surprised and disappointed you, Nick. This is just one of the few times that it seemed like we were encouraging poor decision-making.
 
cleared4theoption said:
I look at it like this. Tires wearing down should be an operating expense that the company plans for. If this company is operating their profit margins so razor thin, that not getting this 100$ will put them under, then I don't think I want to fly with them. The other scenario is that they are trying to just milk an extra 100$ out of me for something that was done in the process of LEARNING how to fly. They are hoping that I will just pay it.
Click to expand...
The tire didn't wear down though, did it? You broke it.

And you didn't break it when you were receiving instruction or when someone else was in command of the plane. You broke it when you were the pilot and you were PIC. Whether or not you had your student certificate or your permanent certificate is irrelevant at that point. Both allow you to operate an aircraft (though you do need an endorsement if you're only a student - and I assume you had this endorsement before you solo'd). If the CFI had been in the plane when this happened, you might be able to make a reasonable argument that you were receiving training and weren't responsible. But you can't deny full responsibility when you're the only one in the plane and in full command of the plane.

-Felix
 
Okay...I'm going to say this one more time. At no point have I said I am ducking responsibility...at no point did I claim to have not made a mistake...at no point have I said I didn't learn a lesson...

But apparently I am "trying to duck an ethical stricture" and engaging in "a hazarous attitude" and "poor decision making" and not "owning up to a problem"


What "problem"?
What "attitude"?

:dunno:
And just as an aside, this thread started out as healthy discussion and debate about wheather or not the School should, or more to the point, wheather or not it was good buisness practice for a school to collect money for something like this from a student or if it should just be considered a normal buisness expense...I had some debate, read several opinions, and was ready to move on. Then certain posters decided to start making little jabs about dodging responsibilty, and other attacks on my character...I'm sorry, but I couldn't let it go...at this point I have pretty much decided to just pay it and move on. Now I am mad at myself for letting those comments get me this upset.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top