Renter's responsibility to ensure airworthiness

[Dave Siciliano]

The practical way is to look at the annual and 100-hour sign off (and any follow up squawks). Of of course, the other required inspections such as pitot system, altimeter and ELT. The annual signoff should state that all ADs are complied with. Even as an owner, I don't go in behind my expert mechanic and check his work; an entry could be incorrect. The problem with searching for ADs goes farther than what has been brought out. Older planes have a lot of components that have been changed. Some have STCs, others had yellow tags. How is a pilot to seach for all of those. There is a point, the pilot relies on a third party expert: the IA or A&P as each apply to an inspection or work that has been completed. The FAA may be arbitrary in trying to blame the PIC, the PIC would have recourse to the expert that signed it off. If the pilot had no reasonable manner in which to have first hand knowledge, he certainly would have legal options. To me, a signed inspection form by a third party expert is what I rely on. One should look at manditory inspection signoff and subsequent squawks. Doing first-hand AD checks is an unreasonable burden for an occassional renter. May apply more to someone like me that is an owner, operator PIC.
So, do the airline crews do first hand AD checks on each plane they fly? Or do they rely upon the signoff in the logs and what Ops says?

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

As I said originally, the practicality of checking isn't the FAA's concern. If you fly a plane subject to an AD, and the AD is not complied with, 91.7(a) has been violated, and as PIC, your ticket is on the line no matter whose plane it is. Sure, if the FAA mails out an Emergency AD grounding your plane, the FAA isn't going to hold your feet to the fire if you fly it before you receive the notice. But if the FBO received notification and let you fly their plane anyway, the FBO isn't the only ticketholder in trouble. You may not like this, but that's the way it is. And as I said up front, the upshot of this is that you have to decide if you are willing to trust the FBO not to let you fly an illegal airplane. If you can, you should have nothing to worry about. If you can't do that, find somewhere else to rent, but don't expect the FAA to sympathize if you violate 91.7(a). And if you choose not to accept this as reflective of how the FAA will treat such a situation, don't blame me if the FAA cooks your goose if you fly a rental plane on which the FBO didn't clear an applicable AD.

 

[Henning]

No, but I do verify the AD compliance list from the last annual before I get in a client's plane.
The FAA might disagree with your statement that the PIC is not the operator of a rental aircraft.
I do not believe the FAA will see it your way. In addition, I know for sure that if you show up for a practical test with an airplane without a properly prepared and signed AD compliance list from the last annual in the maintenance records you present, you may have to walk home with your pink slip, even if it's a rental plane.

If the Annual is signed off as airworthy, the AD list must have been complied with, although, there can be ADs that are not on the list, that weren't required on last annual that are now overdue by tach time. If I didn't research every applicable AD on that aircraft, under your assertion, I am liable for that AD. It can't work that way, every pilot would have to be an IA in order to meet the burden you set forth. You have to be able to trust that when the log book says the plane is in annual, and the Operator (FBO) who Enables The Flight, when they rent you the plane.

 

[Henning]

As I said originally, the practicality of checking isn't the FAA's concern. If you fly a plane subject to an AD, and the AD is not complied with, 91.7(a) has been violated, and as PIC, your ticket is on the line no matter whose plane it is.

Please cite one example or legal interpretation backing up that assertion,

 

[Tom-D]

I still do not believe the pilot of a rental will ever get cited for Maintenance related violations when it is very clear that the responsibility for maintenance is the owner/operator's

I believe the best example of that is the lack of records of this violation on pilots, but a multitude of maintenance shops that have.

The way the FARs are written, and the way they are interpreted by the FAA are 2 different things, They know they can and will be reversed by the NTSB judge, when they can not prove the pilot has a requirement for training in the Practical test standards or any record of training in the subject during their student phase.

When you stop to consider that the FARs are written to cover all aspects of aviation, and the owner, operator, and pilot can be the same person, and the owner, operator, and pilot could be 3 different people, the FAA will go for the person who had the largest responsibility for the violation, and this will vary for every situtation.

 

[Henning]

Take another look at that word before the red words -- "use." The PIC is using the plane, so the PIC is "operating" the plane. .

Read the words before use, Cause to use or (especially as this is the one that matters here)authorize to use, that is the rentor, the FBO, Flight School, 135 operator, corporate flight department... Not the individual private renter. The rener does not authorize the use, the FBO does. A renter seeks authorization.

 

[Henning]

Cap'n Ron is 100% correct, and those of you who assert that a renter pilot or borrower is somehow off the hook are guilty of sophistry. There is at least one article in the AOPA Legally Speaking series (which I am too lazy to look up) pointing out that the person who is going to fly the airplane as PIC does indeed carry the can for outstanding AD's, inspections, et al. The fact that hardy anyone looks them up, and that FBO's do not make such research easy, is no excuse.

Bob Gardner

Cite one example of this kind of enforcement please. I do not take AOPAs word for anything regulatory, they had the Photogaphy for sale with PPL wrong for years.

 

[Tom-D]

Who is the operator

I own NC19143, I fly the aircraft .....who is the operator?

Cessna Leasing owns the Carivan, Kenmore Air uses the Carivan, Joe the pilot flys the aircraft ......who is the operator?

Net Jet flys many aircraft owned by many people, contract pilots fly the aircraft, ...........who is the operator?

I borrow an aircraft from a private owner, and fly it.....who is the operator?

 

[gprellwitz]

It all hinges upon the proper definition of "Operator" can you quote one from the regulations? (1.1 doesn't give a good one)

this is as close as it gets

Operate, 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 of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

This seems to lend credence to the argument that there may be multiple simultaneous "operators" of an aircraft who are thus liable under 91.7(a), given the following posits:

1) an aircraft operator is one who operates an aircraft per the 1.1 definition above.

2) the PIC uses an aircraft for the purpose of air navigation

3) the FBO authorizes the use of an aircraft for the purposes of air navigation.

So you've actually convinced me of Ron's position that the PIC is also the operator, though I know you still have some reservations about that. I have reservations about the implications of that for this rule, but they are more based on the practicality and expense of compliance. I know that Ron pointed out that the FAA isn't concerned with these

practicality of checking isn't the FAA's concern

, but I seem to recall that cost of compliance is one of the factors that is considered before adoption of a new rule.

Of course, this isn't a new rule, so the time to contest this would seem to be past, but wasn't there recently a call by the FAA(?) for examples of rules that needed to be rewritten or modified for any reason? This would seem to be an example of such a rule, if it is inherently causing most renters to violate it in the main, and if cost of compliance would be exorbitant with little or no gain in safety.

Before anyone jumps on me for this, note that I am not saying that the PIC shouldn't ensure that the aircraft is safe to fly. Merely that failure to ensure that all airworthiness paperwork is complied with, that the aircraft logbooks are up to date showing AD compliance before every flight, etc. is unrealistic and shouldn't be required of the renter. In other words, in a rental situation, 91.7(a) should apply to the FBO (perhaps "commercial operator" would be appropriate verbiage?) and 91.7(b) continue to apply to the renter/PIC. (Also, o be clear, this paragraph refers to a hypothetical modification of the existing rule, not the rule as it currently stands.)

 

[Henning]

Who is the operator

1) I own NC19143, I fly the aircraft .....who is the operator?

2) Cessna Leasing owns the Carivan, Kenmore Air uses the Carivan, Joe the pilot flys the aircraft ......who is the operator?

3) Net Jet flys many aircraft owned by many people, contract pilots fly the aircraft, ...........who is the operator?

4) I borrow an aircraft from a private owner, and fly it.....who is the operator?

1) You are

2) Kenmore Air is

3) Net Jets

4) The owner

 

[poadeleted20]

Read the words before use, Cause to use or (especially as this is the one that matters here)authorize to use, that is the rentor, the FBO, Flight School, 135 operator, corporate flight department... Not the individual private renter. The rener does not authorize the use, the FBO does. A renter seeks authorization.

Read the whole thing again yourself -- especially the part that says "piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise." A pilot is "operating" an aircraft, and that one is open and shut. See Administrator v. Ridpath (listed in the NTSB files under "operate, definition of;"), which states clearly that the PIC was the "aircraft's operator." Further, in that case, the non-PIC safety pilot was found to have been "operating" the aircraft even though he was neither the "operator" nor the manipulator of the controls.

With that, I'm done on this thread.

 

[Tom-D]

I fail to make the connection between 61.3, (certificates for PIC) 91.13, (careless and reckless) and 91.17 alcohol and drugs, with this topic of airworthiness. and the report does not say who owned the aircraft, was it a rental. or did it belong to the student under instruction.

 

[Tom-D]

1) You are

2) Kenmore Air is

3) Net Jets

4) The owner

That's my opinion too.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Read the whole thing again yourself -- especially the part that says "piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise." A pilot is "operating" an aircraft, and that one is open and shut. See Administrator v. Ridpath (listed in the NTSB files under "operate, definition of;"), which states clearly that the PIC was the "aircraft's operator." Further, in that case, the non-PIC safety pilot was found to have been "operating" the aircraft even though he was neither the "operator" nor the manipulator of the controls.

With that, I'm done on this thread.

Ron:

I hope I didn't come across as disagreeing with you; you're probably right as rain. I was just trying to point out that right as you may be, meeting the criteria set out is not practical.

In looking at these rulings (as in court decisions) we don't know if there was vigorous representation by an effective expert; if there was an agenda because of other issues, etc.

Best,

Dave

 

[stingray]

Without doing an AD search you really don't know.
But you as PIC are STILL responsible as far as I can tell for making sure that they are.
So, do you need to do some extra home work to be sure? YES you do!

I may be totally wrong here but I thought I heard from some source that the PIC only has to make sure that they were done (Not done correctly necessarily) if the log books say they were done that is all that is required of the pilot. If the log book says that the plane is in annual he does not have to go back and make sure that the annual was done correct. He has to be (reasonably sure). If that was the case a pilot would have to take the plane apart down to the last bolt just to make sure that every part was "approved".

Dan

 

[Henning]

Read the whole thing again yourself -- especially the part that says "piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise." A pilot is "operating" an aircraft, and that one is open and shut. See Administrator v. Ridpath (listed in the NTSB files under "operate, definition of;"), which states clearly that the PIC was the "aircraft's operator." Further, in that case, the non-PIC safety pilot was found to have been "operating" the aircraft even though he was neither the "operator" nor the manipulator of the controls.

With that, I'm done on this thread.

Completely unrelated. He was physically operating the aircraft (verb), he was not an administrative operator (noun). It's confusing because the word has different meanings in different contexts. In administrative context, the FBO is the operator in a rental situation.