Poor guy flying in from another flight school

F

fox2102

New Member
So I just got a line job working at a small airport and the other day a Cherokee 140 landed and I recognized the tail number from a flight school from another airport. Now these guys fly in all the time but always do touch and goes. Well the pilot comes in and gets a drink and comes up to the desk and starts complaining about the condition of the plane. He said the door doesn't latch properly because the top latch is broken. He also said he was doing night time IFR with an instructor and wend to turn the nav lights on and they didnt work and when he went to turn the landing lights on the instructor told him the landing lights didnt work either. They were charging him a good bit for this plane too. In fact it turns out that we rent a 2006 diamond for $2 an hour less than that 140. Apparently his friend that was training with him quit because he didn't feel safe in the planes.

Now I'm not a pilot myself but aren't there some kind of regulations against things like that?
 
fox2102 said:
So I just got a line job working at a small airport and the other day a Cherokee 140 landed and I recognized the tail number from a flight school from another airport. Now these guys fly in all the time but always do touch and goes. Well the pilot comes in and gets a drink and comes up to the desk and starts complaining about the condition of the plane. He said the door doesn't latch properly because the top latch is broken. He also said he was doing night time IFR with an instructor and wend to turn the nav lights on and they didnt work and when he went to turn the landing lights on the instructor told him the landing lights didnt work either. They were charging him a good bit for this plane too. In fact it turns out that we rent a 2006 diamond for $2 an hour less than that 140. Apparently his friend that was training with him quit because he didn't feel safe in the planes.

Now I'm not a pilot myself but aren't there some kind of regulations against things like that?
Click to expand...

that's definitely against regs.

other than that I don't know if the door is a safety issue or not in FAA's eyes and whatnot
 
fox2102 said:
So I just got a line job working at a small airport and the other day a Cherokee 140 landed and I recognized the tail number from a flight school from another airport. Now these guys fly in all the time but always do touch and goes. Well the pilot comes in and gets a drink and comes up to the desk and starts complaining about the condition of the plane. He said the door doesn't latch properly because the top latch is broken. He also said he was doing night time IFR with an instructor and wend to turn the nav lights on and they didnt work and when he went to turn the landing lights on the instructor told him the landing lights didnt work either. They were charging him a good bit for this plane too. In fact it turns out that we rent a 2006 diamond for $2 an hour less than that 140. Apparently his friend that was training with him quit because he didn't feel safe in the planes.

Now I'm not a pilot myself but aren't there some kind of regulations against things like that?
Click to expand...

Yeah that's against the regs too. lol
 
I did a short amount of training with a flight school once, and left because I questioned the safety of their operation and aircraft. They've since had two accidents attributed to mechanical failure - one fatal.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I did a short amount of training with a flight school once, and left because I questioned the safety of their operation and aircraft. They've since had two accidents attributed to mechanical failure - one fatal.
Click to expand...
I think there have been at least 4 in the past few months. Two have been engine failure (possibly a third- not sure). One was not plane related. (And another that is not owned by the school, but has connections. I saw an interesting NTSB report on that one.)
 
The light issue is for sure reg breaking. Those have to operational at night. The landing light also has to be operational since the airplane is being used for hire.
 
Muff3n said:
The light issue is for sure reg breaking. Those have to operational at night. The landing light also has to be operational since the airplane is being used for hire.
Click to expand...

Aircraft rental isn't a commerical activity. The act of renting a plane itself doesn't require a 100 hour inspection. I doubt that renting a plane constitutes being for hire.
 
I know that the regs state that a 100 hour must be done if the aircraft is being used for compensation or hire, but also if the aircraft is being used for flight training. Does that same thing apply to the landing light?
 
p1l07m4n said:
I know that the regs state that a 100 hour must be done if the aircraft is being used for compensation or hire, but also if the aircraft is being used for flight training.
Click to expand...

Only for flight training in which the plane is provided by the flight instructor. Otherwise, the 100 hour isn't required.
 
Yuk
Am I correct that even if it is not required by reg, which it is, shouldn't it either be working or removed/disabled and placarded inop?
 
So does he preflight the airplane, find stuff wrong/inop/ broken, then get into it? By the time he's working on his IR you'd think he'd have some clue about PIC decision making, but maybe not....
 
the last month I was all over the US to buy a light twin. Guys about 80% of the planes I saw for sale where flying out of the regs....One of the CFIs I flew with asked me how many hours I want on my logbook that he would sign them. One of the Senecas I was looking at, had an Ad that was due since many years and they flew it 2000 hours over..funny is that when I told the FAA about that they told me that they don`t care unless the plane is operated under 135....
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Aircraft rental isn't a commerical activity. The act of renting a plane itself doesn't require a 100 hour inspection. I doubt that renting a plane constitutes being for hire.
Click to expand...
The Landing light still would need to be placarded and disabled or removed. So it is still illegal.
 
fox2102 said:
Now I'm not a pilot myself but aren't there some kind of regulations against things like that?
Click to expand...
Yep, sure is. There are also regulations against operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or above posted speed limits. There are regulations against lying on your tax returns. There are regulations against theft, robbery and assault. All of these things have one thing in common. They're all illegal and they all still happen every day. IOW its only illegal if you get caught.
 
p1l07m4n said:
I know that the regs state that a 100 hour must be done if the aircraft is being used for compensation or hire, but also if the aircraft is being used for flight training. Does that same thing apply to the landing light?
Click to expand...

"91.205
...
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light."

So yes, if someone is paying for an airplane in any way it does require a landing light for night flight.
The 100 hour is a little more vague:
"... no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides..."
Note, it does not say "...owns...", it says "...provides...". I do know CFIs and flight schools who get around this by saying "I don't own the airplane, so someone else provides it." Yet if I were to try and teach in that airplane I would not be permitted to... so the same person is providing airplane and instruction.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Aircraft rental isn't a commerical activity. The act of renting a plane itself doesn't require a 100 hour inspection. I doubt that renting a plane constitutes being for hire.
Click to expand...

Aircraft rental is most certainly a commercial activity if someone is paying money for the airplane. Now it is commercial activity exempted by 119. That's like saying sightseeing flights are not a commercial activity because they are not covered by 119. It is a commercial activity... just not a commercial activity that must comply with 119.
 
XLR99 said:
So does he preflight the airplane, find stuff wrong/inop/ broken, then get into it? By the time he's working on his IR you'd think he'd have some clue about PIC decision making, but maybe not....
Click to expand...

He probably does. But he's also got a CFI with him. IME it takes a long time for the average pilot to get to the point where they're comfortable making a PIC decision that contradicts the CFI sitting in the other seat. Not saying its right but its the way it is none the less. If the student knows from experience that the CFI is ok with flying a plane that has a faulty door latch, then how can the student be expected to decide on their own that flying the plane with said condition is unacceptable? They may know in their gut that it isn't right. But if the CFI said it was ok, who are they to argue? It takes quite a while for most pilots build enough confidence in their own PIC decision abilities to make that call. The typical IR student isn't likely to have that level of confidence yet.
 
fox2102 said:
He also said he was doing night time IFR with an instructor and wend to turn the nav lights on and they didnt work and when he went to turn the landing lights on the instructor told him the landing lights didnt work either.
Click to expand...

Does he not do his own pre-flight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top