Using someone else's plane

Dave Siciliano

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Siciliano
I know someone with a TBM700 that would like to let me fly the plane (with an instructor) to see if I like it and to build some fixed wing turbine time (all of mine is rotary). I've offered to cover his cost and he's wondering if it can come back to bite him in any way. This is part 91. So, is there a problem with me flying with an instructor and paying him a reasonable rate for the plane or is that verboten? What if I wish to fly it myself? Can anyone point me to anything written on point that I can pass along?

Best,

Dave
 
The only limiting issue will be driven by his insurance policy. If you pay him, the language of the policy might -- or might not -- interpret it as a commercial use of the airplane, thereby denying coverage if something happens when you're flying it. Only a thorough read of his policy will answer this. Because he's not "renting" it to just anyone, it may fall within acceptable use as defined by his policy

However, he could let you use the airplane for the cost of fuel. And if it so happened that you dropped an envelope full of $100 bills in his hangar, oh well.

What you propose is done all the time. I did it with my Citabria for a few years. There are no legal impediments to what you propose other than the insurance issue. Oh and the issue that whatever you pay him might be taxable under state sales tax and, for him, income tax.

Now, if you get this worked out with him please give me his phone number! :)
 
Thanks Ken. So 'renting' the plane isn't an issue other than for insurance? When would it become a 'commercial' operation?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
So, is there a problem with me flying with an instructor and paying him a reasonable rate for the plane or is that verboten? What if I wish to fly it myself? Can anyone point me to anything written on point that I can pass along?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
My understanding is that as long as you are paying only the operating costs of the plane and the pilot (or instructor) is qualified to fly in the plane then all is fine. The insurance company might be leary if they believe the plane is being used for instruction though.
 
NC Pilot said:
My understanding is that as long as you are paying only the operating costs of the plane and the pilot (or instructor) is qualified to fly in the plane then all is fine. The insurance company might be leary if they believe the plane is being used for instruction though.
Click to expand...
The problem might arise if you are paying into the owners engine (ets) reserves. Paying only direct operating costs is almost always OK, but once you get into reserves you start talking shades of gray.
 
What Dave said:

Dave Siciliano said:
I know someone with a TBM700 that would like to let me fly the plane (with an instructor) to see if I like it and to build some fixed wing turbine time (all of mine is rotary). I've offered to cover his cost and he's wondering if it can come back to bite him in any way. This is part 91. So, is there a problem with me flying with an instructor and paying him a reasonable rate for the plane or is that verboten? What if I wish to fly it myself? Can anyone point me to anything written on point that I can pass along?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

What Tony heard: TBM RIDES AT GASTONS!! WOOHOOOO!

:D:D:D
 
Thanks Ken. That helps. Actually, a friend is flying a TBM; King Air 200 and Pilatus. I've asked to be able to get some time in them to see what I like. The TBM seems closest to what I'm flying with a turbine (and, of course, one fan) but closest to my operating costs. The other two planes are much bigger, but longer term, my partner and I might like an 90 model King Air and time in one will help later.

Best,

Dave
 
"Common purpose" is not an issue when the pilot is paying for the flight. As long as you are paying for the plane you are flying for your own purposes (including receiving instruction in it), you are absolutely OK as far as the FAA is concerned vis a vis "commercial operations," and you can take anyone you want anywhere you want (including anywhere they want) as long as there's no "quid pro quo" for you in exchange for the "free" transportation. Just make sure you pay all the direct costs of the flight.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Thanks Ken. So 'renting' the plane isn't an issue other than for insurance? When would it become a 'commercial' operation?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

If you are renting it from him for Pt 91 use, no issues except qualifying for the insurance. However, if you are renting it and getting instruction in it, he may have to comply with the 100hr inspection rule. The easiest way may be for him to sell you a "share" of the airplane for $1.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Thanks Ken. That helps. Actually, a friend is flying a TBM; King Air 200 and Pilatus. I've asked to be able to get some time in them to see what I like. The TBM seems closest to what I'm flying with a turbine (and, of course, one fan) but closest to my operating costs. The other two planes are much bigger, but longer term, my partner and I might like an 90 model King Air and time in one will help later.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I need to find new friends. :fcross:

James Dean
 
Y'know, thinking about it for a minute, since you are considering buying, if the plane would need a 100hr inspection, it may be worth it to pay for or a portion, of it and attend the inspection so you can get a good look at it.
 
Dave, have the CFI with whom your friend is comfortable, become a named pilot. If there is any cost associated thereto, contribute that cost. Then just log the time.
 
What is the issue with you renting the airplane from the owner? That in itself does not make it a commercial operation. You are not going to be operating it for hire.

Have the owner call the insurance company and tell them what you are doing. They will tell the owner what options there are. I've done this with mine. Turns out I lent my Six to a friend and I had to do nothing. His ratings were above and beyond what was required and he & I were covered without having to name him on the policy.

Like Bruce said...I'd fly with the owner's CFI, someone he & the insurance company trusts.

Being above board with the insurance company is tops on my list. I want the coverage should something happen to my bird.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
If you are renting it from him for Pt 91 use, no issues except qualifying for the insurance. However, if you are renting it and getting instruction in it, he may have to comply with the 100hr inspection rule. The easiest way may be for him to sell you a "share" of the airplane for $1.
Click to expand...

Even getting instruction doesn't require any special treatment (100 hr inspection etc) as long as the instructor isn't providing the plane or has an employee like relationship with the owner.

That said, the owner's insurance might specifically limit instruction to the owner. In any case Dave, I'd seriously try to obtain my own coverage for the flights. Perhaps the insurer of your Baron might cover dual in the TBM for a reasonable fee provided the CFI has acceptable qualifications.
 
Henning said:
Y'know, thinking about it for a minute, since you are considering buying, if the plane would need a 100hr inspection, it may be worth it to pay for or a portion, of it and attend the inspection so you can get a good look at it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the purchase of one of these is in the cards right now for me. My partner and I would each like to get some time in each of these to get perspective: to see what we like, how it handles and what if costs to operate. In the future, we might look at one of these, but, like everyone, we have a budget and even a used TBM is pretty expensive. We are thinking some of these prices may change as the VLJs and new turbines come to market. There will be more used planes to choose among closer to our budget. It would be nice to know what we like; get some time in it so the transition can go smoothly and to have some direction as prices approach what we can do!

Thanks everyone for the input.

Best,

Dave
 
I would think that if something happens to cause damage to the plane, and you are NOT named on the owners policy, then once his insurance has paid off to cover HIS loss, he turns over his subrogation rights to the insurance carrier. They will then almost surely come to you to recover THEIR "loss".
Funny thing about insurance. There really isn't much risk of loss to them in that scenario. You are just paying them to sue the other guy for the money to fix your plane.
I know a pilot who suffered from just this problem when he "borrowed" a friend's plane, and suffered a prop strike. He ended up paying the insurance company's expense for the prop and the teardown/inspection.
My policy..... If I can't afford to fix/replace it I won't borrow it until I'm NAMED on the policy and I'm willing and able to pay the difference in the owner's policy premiums.
 
Keith Lane said:
I would think that if something happens to cause damage to the plane, and you are NOT named on the owners policy, then once his insurance has paid off to cover HIS loss, he turns over his subrogation rights to the insurance carrier. They will then almost surely come to you to recover THEIR "loss".
Funny thing about insurance. There really isn't much risk of loss to them in that scenario. You are just paying them to sue the other guy for the money to fix your plane.
I know a pilot who suffered from just this problem when he "borrowed" a friend's plane, and suffered a prop strike. He ended up paying the insurance company's expense for the prop and the teardown/inspection.
My policy..... If I can't afford to fix/replace it I won't borrow it until I'm NAMED on the policy and I'm willing and able to pay the difference in the owner's policy premiums.
Click to expand...

I hope you mean "named insured" rather than "named pilot". The former means what you said (the insurer cannot come after you), but the latter simply means that coverage (protecting the owner not you) is in effect when you are PIC. An alternative to being added as a named insured is a waiver of subrogation in your name.
 
lancefisher said:
I hope you mean "named insured" rather than "named pilot". The former means what you said (the insurer cannot come after you), but the latter simply means that coverage (protecting the owner not you) is in effect when you are PIC. An alternative to being added as a named insured is a waiver of subrogation in your name.
Click to expand...

you are correct, sir.....
That is prezactly what I meant. Just not what I typed.
You have to be named on the policy as an "insured operator" of the plane. Works the same way in a car, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top