Operator

[tonycondon]

I think i've read here before and Tom has said that the Operator of an aircraft in a rental situation is considered to be the person providing the aircraft, not the renter? FSDO guy at the safety meeting tonight made it seem the other way, and was fairly clear that the renter pilot was responsible for ensuring that all ADs etc. were complied with.

 

[KennyFlys]

That's exactly what I've been told time and time again. The PIC is the final authority and also the one responsible for insuring the aircraft is compliant. But, all information should be made available for their inspection by the owner.

 

[tonycondon]

the pilot in command is responsible for determining that an aircraft is in condition for safe flight (91.7). thats different from being responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition, which is an owner/operator responsibility (91.403) and that is where the definition of operator becomes important.

 

[KennyFlys]

the pilot in command is responsible for determining that an aircraft is in condition for safe flight (91.7). thats different from being responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition, which is an owner/operator responsibility (91.403) and that is where the definition of operator becomes important.

Define "operator."

In Part 1.1, "Operate" is defined as... "with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right to legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."

In this case, the PIC is the operator and has ultimate responsibility.

 

[jesse]

In this case, the PIC is the operator and has ultimate responsibility.

Unfortunately it is basically impossible for a renter pilot to know if all ADs have been complied with.

 

[KennyFlys]

Unfortunately it is basically impossible for a renter pilot to know if all ADs have been complied with.

That information may be difficult to find out but whether the PIC knows or not but it's still their responsibility to determine if the aircraft is airworthy. When the PIC is standing in front of the administrative law judge, he or she will be explaining why they operated the aircraft when they could not prove it was airworthy.

There's a phrase often heard... "Ignorance is not an excuse to violate the law."

If you're a regular operator of that aircraft, you may be more on top of what happens than one who pops in, gets a rental checkout then only rents a random aircraft every few months. Most students become pretty familiar with the planes they fly. So do frequent renters. Both tend to schedule the same preferred aircraft because they do know that bird.

But, if you're that casual renter... know what you're getting into the seat of. This is why maintenance records are part of a checkride. The examinees must prove they understand how to locate information and determine if an aircraft is in compliance.

After a recent experience, I have to wonder how many folks flying in and around Class B airspace have looked for a current inspection of the transponder?

 

[dmccormack]

Unfortunately it is basically impossible for a renter pilot to know if all ADs have been complied with.

Depends on the FBO.

For our Training BE77 Skipper we have a printout of all ADs and compliance date, Airframe. Engine, Prop, and Avionics Logbook, and a Due Date cheat sheet in the airplane.

All students learn how to review and what to look for an eventually -- how to update.

 

[jesse]

Depends on the FBO.

For our Training BE77 Skipper we have a printout of all ADs and compliance date, Airframe. Engine, Prop, and Avionics Logbook, and a Due Date cheat sheet in the airplane.

All students learn how to review and what to look for an eventually -- how to update.

Sure--but you still don't know if they've put all of them in that printout.

 

[jesse]

But, if you're that casual renter... know what you're getting into the seat of. This is why maintenance records are part of a checkride. The examinees must prove they understand how to locate information and determine if an aircraft is in compliance.

Understand Kenny--I'm being realistic. There is simply no way as a renter pilot to truly know that the FBO is doing all the ADs that are required. If they are in the records, sure, you can see when it was last done and when it needs to be done next.

If they've never bothered with the AD at all--meaning they're not in the records--you don't know. That simple. You can try and look it up, but you still can't find all of them.

 

[Everskyward]

I think i've read here before and Tom has said that the Operator of an aircraft in a rental situation is considered to be the person providing the aircraft, not the renter? FSDO guy at the safety meeting tonight made it seem the other way, and was fairly clear that the renter pilot was responsible for ensuring that all ADs etc. were complied with.

I agreed with Tom before and I still do about who the operator of the aircraft is. In many cases the operator is not the pilot, although it can be. The operator is responsible for getting the ADs done and has the bigger burden. Sure the pilot should check to see whether they are done or not but as Jesse said, in practical terms, that is sometimes not practical or possible.

Wasn't SWA recently fined something like $10 million for overflying inspections or not having required maintenance done? They didn't come after the individual pilots, they came after the operator, the airline.

 

[Tom-D]

I agreed with Tom before and I still do about who the operator of the aircraft is. In many cases the operator is not the pilot, although it can be. The operator is responsible for getting the ADs done and has the bigger burden. Sure the pilot should check to see whether they are done or not but as Jesse said, in practical terms, that is sometimes not practical or possible.

Wasn't SWA recently fined something like $10 million for overflying inspections or not having required maintenance done? They didn't come after the individual pilots, they came after the operator, the airline.

Thanks, but the FAA has stated that the "Operator" has varied meaning depandant upon the usage in phrase.

In this case the "Operator" is the PIC. I got beat up pretty bad at the IA siminar last year debating this with the FSDO head of GA airworthiness.

 

[KennyFlys]

Understand Kenny--I'm being realistic. There is simply no way as a renter pilot to truly know that the FBO is doing all the ADs that are required. If they are in the records, sure, you can see when it was last done and when it needs to be done next.

If they've never bothered with the AD at all--meaning they're not in the records--you don't know. That simple. You can try and look it up, but you still can't find all of them.

I agree. The caveat is if are you are seeking the records and do not have them available to inspect then something happens, it still falls back on you as PIC. Even if you don't actively seek them out and something happens... It's a Catch 22 for the PIC.

I'm not saying that is what will happen but I suspect it has happen and led to violations and the potential is there for it to happen in the future on some given situation after an incident and the PIC survives.

 

[TMetzinger]

Back to the original question - the PIC is on the hook for determining that the airplane is airworthy for flight, no matter who the operator is. The operator is responsible for maintaining the airplane. Thus the FAA has two folks to hang over airworthiness issues.

When instruction is being given by a flight school, the flight school is the operator. When it's a straight rental, I believe (but am not sure) that the agency renting the airplane to the pilot is still the operator.

The best pilots can do is get assurance in writing from the operator (or their A&P) that the airplane is airworthy. That assurance is valid when they give you the airplane after maintenance and expires one nanosecond later. You still have the duty to know if any newly released AD's affect the airplane you're going to fly, and you have the duty to review the logs to see if they've been complied with. You also have the duty to physically inspect the airplane before flight.

I'd love to see rental places have a clause in their rental agreement that they warrant the airplane is airworthy at the time of dispatch.

 

[KennyFlys]

Wasn't SWA recently fined something like $10 million for overflying inspections or not having required maintenance done? They didn't come after the individual pilots, they came after the operator, the airline.

I think if you're flying an airplane from Point C to Point D and the records are kept back at the hub at Point A, there's no reasonable means to know what is in the records. But, it also wasn't a willful violation on the PIC's part.

The one thing that can keep a pilot out of trouble would be an written A&P statement saying the aircraft was in compliance with all requirements, is considered airworthy and is being returned to service. The same thing could be true of Southwest. I think if the Skyhawk renter had access to this statement as part of the rental paperwork, that would be a the CYA for their own situation.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think if you're flying an airplane from Point C to Point D and the records are kept back at the hub at Point A, there's no reasonable means to know what is in the records. But, it also wasn't a willful violation on the PIC's part.

The one thing that can keep a pilot out of trouble would be an written A&P statement saying the aircraft was in compliance with all requirements, is considered airworthy and is being returned to service. The same thing could be true of Southwest. I think if the Skyhawk renter had access to this statement as part of the rental paperwork, that would be a the CYA for their own situation.

Only if it was signed by the A&P immediately prior to departure... see above.

 

[Everskyward]

The one thing that can keep a pilot out of trouble would be an written A&P statement saying the aircraft was in compliance with all requirements, is considered airworthy and is being returned to service. The same thing could be true of Southwest. I think if the Skyhawk renter had access to this statement as part of the rental paperwork, that would be a the CYA for their own situation.

In our case we get either a 91 or a 135 release which says the aircraft is ready for flight. Actually, that's not just the airplanes but includes the pilots too. I've never gone back and checked the maintenance records personally to see if they are correct, in fact I would have no idea how to do that. I think there is one person whose full time job it is to keep up with the inspections on about 15 airplanes.

 

[KennyFlys]

Only if it was signed by the A&P immediately prior to departure... see above.

That statement accompanied by an A&P signature is exactly what I was referring to.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ok guys, let me ask this. Honest question. If I, as PIC, am considered "operator" of a rental airplane as far as making sure the airplane has all of the AD's complied with, as well as the inspections and all that, just how am I supposed to do that?

I can ask to go look at the logbooks. That is OK as far as it goes. But how the hell am I supposed to know what all the AD's are for that aircraft. How am I supposed to know if they were complied with correctly? How am I supposed to know if an emergency AD was issued last week for the airplane I am about to fly?

The AD notices are issued to the owner/operator, NOT the individual pilots. I have no way of knowing what AD's are issued on a given airplane. I have no way of knowing any of that stuff. For anyone to say a not owner pilot is the operator of the aircraft in that context is blowing smoke and out of their fricking minds.

But this IS the FAA we are talking about.

 

[jesse]

Ok guys, let me ask this. Honest question. If I, as PIC, am considered "operator" of a rental airplane as far as making sure the airplane has all of the AD's complied with, as well as the inspections and all that, just how am I supposed to do that?

I can ask to go look at the logbooks. That is OK as far as it goes. But how the hell am I supposed to know what all the AD's are for that aircraft. How am I supposed to know if they were complied with correctly? How am I supposed to know if an emergency AD was issued last week for the airplane I am about to fly?

The AD notices are issued to the owner/operator, NOT the individual pilots. I have no way of knowing what AD's are issued on a given airplane. I have no way of knowing any of that stuff. For anyone to say a not owner pilot is the operator of the aircraft in that context is blowing smoke and out of their fricking minds.

But this IS the FAA we are talking about.

Exactly. There just isn't any way for the rental pilot to know. All that said--the FAA can feel however they'd like--because the reality of this isn't about to change.

All you can do is check what you know and hope you never prang an airplane when a grumpy inspector is on duty.

 

[KennyFlys]

Ok guys, let me ask this. Honest question. If I, as PIC, am considered "operator" of a rental airplane as far as making sure the airplane has all of the AD's complied with, as well as the inspections and all that, just how am I supposed to do that?

I can ask to go look at the logbooks. That is OK as far as it goes. But how the hell am I supposed to know what all the AD's are for that aircraft. How am I supposed to know if they were complied with correctly? How am I supposed to know if an emergency AD was issued last week for the airplane I am about to fly?

The AD notices are issued to the owner/operator, NOT the individual pilots. I have no way of knowing what AD's are issued on a given airplane. I have no way of knowing any of that stuff. For anyone to say a not owner pilot is the operator of the aircraft in that context is blowing smoke and out of their fricking minds.

But this IS the FAA we are talking about.

Do you, as operator/PIC, have the legal right to inspect any and all records with regard to that aircraft?

I'm not arguing whether they are being made available; just if you have the right to inspection and verification. If so, should you not be held liable if you did not faithfully and in good judgment determine the aircraft was airworthy?

I think an ALJ will hold you liable. The only thing short of that is a signed letter by the A&P stating the aircraft is in compliance as of a given date along with a list of most recent inspections. Such a list is available in most software used for dispatch.

We don't use such software at our school but the dispatch log sheet for each plane has those dates at the top.

It sounds like this would be a good question for the regional counsel.

 

[docmirror]

This is going to be interesting. Back when I had a plane on leaseback, I asked this very question of our FAA Examiner, and the FSDO inspector. Both said the 'operator' is the one flying the aircraft at the time. So, for mx and responsibility purposes, that's the renter in a situation.

Now the SWA situation comes along, and the airline gets smacked for faulty mx, not the actual 'operator' which would be the pilots of each aircraft. And, I think that SWA actually leases some of those planes from a holding company, so who then would be the actual 'operator'? The lessee or the lessor?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I can't be expected to do a full AD search on every airplane I rent before every flight. Absent a regional council ruling, I think the FSDO inspector is wrong.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Do you, as operator/PIC, have the legal right to inspect any and all records with regard to that aircraft?

Legal right? Don't know. Probably.

I'm not arguing whether they are being made available; just if you have the right to inspection and verification. If so, should you not be held liable if you did not faithfully and in good judgment determine the aircraft was airworthy?

Are you suggesting that I go through all the logbooks before every flight? Do an AD search before every flight? (I am not even sure I know how to do that) What if I miss something? "Honest, Sir. I tried to find that AD that they issued this morning." This is just absurd.

I think an ALJ will hold you liable.

Depends on how they choose to define "operator" I guess.

The only thing short of that is a signed letter by the A&P stating the aircraft is in compliance as of a given date along with a list of most recent inspections.

LMAO. In a part 91 FBO operation, good luck with that one.

Such a list is available in most software used for dispatch.

LMAO again.

We don't use such software at our school but the dispatch log sheet for each plane has those dates at the top.

How do you know they are current? You as PIC are taking it on faith that what is at the top is correct. Explain THAT to the ALJ.

It sounds like this would be a good question for the regional counsel.

Yup.

BTW, I find it curious that the term "operator" is not defined in part 1 of the FAR's

 

[KennyFlys]

How do you know they are current? You as PIC are taking it on faith that what is at the top is correct. Explain THAT to the ALJ.

Well, I have less of an excuse. The office with the records is right around the corner from mine and I have access to a key. Furthermore, the owner has a session in the syllabus that requires an in depth discussion and review of maintenance records.

BTW, I find it curious that the term "operator" is not defined in part 1 of the FAR's

No, but "operate" is. That's pretty dang close and it seems to support my opinion.

 

[CJones]

The only thing short of that is a signed letter by the A&P stating the aircraft is in compliance as of a given date along with a list of most recent inspections.

Another question: By the FBO making their plane available for rent, are they IMPLYING (Implied Warranty) that the plane is airworthy as far as AD's, etc.? At some point, the FBO (or entity providing the rental of the aircraft for monetary gain) has to be on the hook for providing an airworthy piece of equipment. To what extent they are held liable, I'm not sure.

An implied warranty of merchantability (general fitness) is an implied promise that the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used (i.e., "This car is fit for passenger transportation.")

 

[Tom-D]

I can't be expected to do a full AD search on every airplane I rent before every flight. Absent a regional council ruling, I think the FSDO inspector is wrong.

He may not be wrong, but he is unrealistic.

The Operator in a contractual agreement is termed an "Operator"

The pilot in actual control of the aircraft is also known as the "Operator"

but the rule only says "Operator" so both are responsible for assuring compliance with the rule.

IT has been quoted by the FAA that they will go after the persons who has the greatest responsibility.

The A&P-IA who completed the last annual that blew off the requirement, will get violated.

The Owner / Operator who is responsibile to get the inspection completed will get violated.

The Student or renter, Very seldom ever gets a hit. because they as a renter have no responsiblity to have maintenance done. The rental agreement should stipulate the rental agency provide a airworthy aircraft.

BUT

the PIC must know the reoccuring ADs on the type aircraft and should know the AD will not occure during the flight. In this case the the A&P will excape the rath of the FAA, the Owner/ Operator and the Pilot won't

 

[Greg Bockelman]

the PIC must know the reoccuring ADs on the type aircraft and should know the AD will not occure during the flight. In this case the the A&P will excape the rath of the FAA, the Owner/ Operator and the Pilot won't

Tom, the following statement is made in general, not at you.

"That is Blowing Snow."

Right wrong or indifferent.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, the following statement is made in general, not at you.

"That is Blowing Snow."

Right wrong or indifferent.

The A&P or the rental agency can not be held responsible for an aircraft that is not under their control.

You act as PIC and run an aircraft past the currency of an AD and see what happens, you will get the hit not the A&P or the rental agency.

Let us say you buy a block of time on an aircraft owned by a 141 flight school. and during that time the aircraft is due a 100 hour AD. You fly it 110 hours and not return it for the compliance of the AD. the flight school won't get the hit, you will.

The A&P will only be violated after making an entry that it was complied with and it was not.

The Cessna Seat track AD gets a few pilots every year, they fly past the 100 hour thinking it is only due at annual.

You can't hold the A&P responsible for that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Generally speaking, the FAA holds the PIC responsible for making sure the aircraft is legally airworthy. If the PIC applied due diligence to the effort, and the FBO actively concealed something, the PIC may get a free pass from the FAA. Most FBO's (and all the good ones) have some sort of active tracking system to ensure inspections and recurrent AD's are c/w, and will have some sort of board or printout for the renter to see that. But if the PIC didn't even ask at the desk for some assurance that the aircraft was legal before taking it, the FAA is not likely to let that slide.

 

[TMetzinger]

Generally speaking, the FAA holds the PIC responsible for making sure the aircraft is legally airworthy. If the PIC applied due diligence to the effort, and the FBO actively concealed something, the PIC may get a free pass from the FAA. Most FBO's (and all the good ones) have some sort of active tracking system to ensure inspections and recurrent AD's are c/w, and will have some sort of board or printout for the renter to see that. But if the PIC didn't even ask at the desk for some assurance that the aircraft was legal before taking it, the FAA is not likely to let that slide.

That matches my experience. Every rental operation I've used has the can/book for the airplane, and the next scheduled maintenance, inspection or AD compliance is always in there in terms of time or date. I do review the logbooks when I first rent the airplane, just to get a feel for it.

 

[TMetzinger]

Some more information - From an FAA inspector, no less!

What I asked:
Now I know the PIC is on the hook for ascertaining airworthiness before flight, regardless of whether he owns/rents/borrows/steals the airplane.

But when I rent an airplane, who is the OPERATOR in the eyes of the FAA, responsible for maintaining the aircraft under 91.403?

The reply I got:

"Interesting you should ask this question I just completed an enforcement case involving a rental aircraft. So to be clear FAR 91 Section 91.3 responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Second 91.403 (a) Owner or operator is primarily responsible for maintaining airworthiness, including A.D. compliance. What this means is the flying club, registered owner, who dispatches the aircraft is considered the owner operator.

If you belong to a flying club check the lease agreement and it will say something about the condition of the aircraft when it is least to you or dispatched it has to be “airworthy”. Because an aircraft is dispatched the club, flight school or owner takes on the responsibility as the operator and can and will be held accountable if something goes wrong.

For example a pilot has to be prudent in checking the dispatch log for open discrepancies when the next inspection 100/ annual is due, AD’s are current. If an aircraft is dispatched to you the operator is saying all of the above are taken care of. However part 91 requires the pilot to perform a normal preflight. If you accomplish the preflight and find no discrepancies you should be okay to operate the aircraft unless something obvious is wrong.

Operators are held accountable for dispatching unairworthy aircraft to renters. Quit often I can find things pilots wouldn’t have to look for so I don’t hold the pilot accountable, but will hold the operator (dispatcher) accountable."

 

[docmirror]

Well, that's pretty definative. It's also opposite from what I got way back when I was leasing back. At least we got it figured out. Thanks.

 

[Everskyward]

Some more information - From an FAA inspector, no less!

That interpretation makes much more sense to me. But it shows you that inspectors, just like pilots, have their own, sometimes different, ideas about things.

 

[Henning]

I think i've read here before and Tom has said that the Operator of an aircraft in a rental situation is considered to be the person providing the aircraft, not the renter? FSDO guy at the safety meeting tonight made it seem the other way, and was fairly clear that the renter pilot was responsible for ensuring that all ADs etc. were complied with.

Ask the FSDO guy for the Chief Counsel opinion on that or some ruling through the court. It's an unviable situation.

 

[dparter]

Some more information - From an FAA inspector, no less!
...

His approach (combined with Ron's explanation) is both common sense and what I was sure I had heard before.

It may be the case that the presenter at the seminar was not trying to play FAR lawyer, but making the point that the PIC is "the final authority" and needs to make a reasonable effort to make sure the plane is airworthy.

--david

 

[stingray]

Understand Kenny--I'm being realistic. There is simply no way as a renter pilot to truly know that the FBO is doing all the ADs that are required. If they are in the records, sure, you can see when it was last done and when it needs to be done next.

If they've never bothered with the AD at all--meaning they're not in the records--you don't know. That simple. You can try and look it up, but you still can't find all of them.

As an owner, unless you look up the AD's yourself you still have no way of truly knowing they are all done. Even if they are logged you do not know if they were actually done or not unless you stood there and watched them being done.

Dan

 

[dparter]

As an owner, unless you look up the AD's yourself you still have no way of truly knowing they are all done. Even if they are logged you do not know if they were actually done or not unless you stood there and watched them being done.

Dan

But as an owner, you hired someone to do that work. You can (and should) research the reputation and review the work of the people hired, and are responsible for your choices.

--david

 

[KennyFlys]

Generally speaking, the FAA holds the PIC responsible for making sure the aircraft is legally airworthy. If the PIC applied due diligence to the effort, and the FBO actively concealed something, the PIC may get a free pass from the FAA. Most FBO's (and all the good ones) have some sort of active tracking system to ensure inspections and recurrent AD's are c/w, and will have some sort of board or printout for the renter to see that. But if the PIC didn't even ask at the desk for some assurance that the aircraft was legal before taking it, the FAA is not likely to let that slide.

Based on that, not even an "implied warranty" of airworthiness would fly with an inspector. You'd pretty much have to have a signed statement of airworthiness by an A&P/IA with the rental paperwork.

 

[gprellwitz]

To be honest, all the legalities aside, it's my butt on the line up there, so I want to be comfortable with the job the FBO does of taking care of the management of the airplane. In one way I'm lucky, because I know the owners pretty well and am flying the same planes they are. Plus, at least one of the ones I fly is on a Part 135 certificate, so I know it's well maintained. On the other hand, the airplane logbooks are kept at the maintenance hangar, which is closed on the weekends, so I couldn't reasonably inspect them before I went to fly on weekends in any case.

From a practical standpoint, I have to hope that any enforcement action will be "fair" because I think that anyone, no matter how conscientious they are, will run afoul of at least one FAR each year, at least by their FSDO's interpretation, if they do any serious amount of flying. If the FAA wants to hang you, they can find a way. The key is in not giving them a reason to do so.

 

[Tom-D]

Based on that, not even an "implied warranty" of airworthiness would fly with an inspector. You'd pretty much have to have a signed statement of airworthiness by an A&P/IA with the rental paperwork.

The signoff of the annual/100 hour is what you have just spoken of.

FAR 43.11

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”