Sharing a plane experience

[GarySawyer]

Hi everybody, what are people's experiences with sharing a plane like? Finding a pilot to split the costs with was difficult. How frequently did members break the. I would appreciate any advice.

[Bede]

Great experience. Never had a scheduling issue. Have a good partnership agreement. Split everything but fuel and reserve equally to encourage guys to fly the plane.

[KiloEcho]

I'm new to flying and I am also curious about fraction ownership but I don't even know where to look for opportunities and where to get started.

[Pilotdaddy]

Also a very good experience with a plane share here. Beware though that it can turn sour even with just one bad share owner. Try to meet all of them in person and make your best guesstimate as far as whether any of them will be a potential headache or not. The quality of the plane itself is secondary behind the quality of the partners themselves imo.

[Bede]

Here's the aircraft partnership agreement that we used. The biggest thing is making sure everyone contributes there fair share. See clause about delinquent partners near the end.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was in 2 partnerships. The first was a 4 person partnership that lasted 4 years before I bailed. The main problem was 2 of the 4 did not want to spend what was necessary to properly maintain the aircraft.

The second was a 2 person partnership that lasted 15 years. The only reason it ended is because my partner was looking at buying another airplane that did not fit my needs so I bought him out. That partnership was a very positive experience. We both were on the same page re maintenance and operations and I think in the 15 years there was only 2 times we both wanted the airplane at the same time. With all the fixed expenses shared 50/50 the savings were considerable and were the only reason I could afford the airplane at the beginning.

Please note there are 2 kinds of "partnerships". The first is shared ownership of an aircraft, the other is the so called "plane share" operations. These are the for profit rental of private aircraft, and IMO exploit a loophole in the CAR's that should never have been allowed.

I would take great care in dealing with these operations as you have no technical or operational dispatch process to support you as would be the case in renting from an FTU. As the PIC you are entirely responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft for the flight you are PIC, and if something bad happens TC will go after you not the plane share operator. This is very relevant as from personal observation I have seen some plane share type of operations aircraft that are absolute junk with many obvious defects. The actual insurance coverage that is provided can also be very problematical and requires the PIC to make sure they understand the extent of their liability.

[JasonE]

Works great if you have like minded people. Diminished return for cost savings vs availability beyond 3.

Clear agreement in writing recommended. Run it like a business...

[Bede]

These are the for profit rental of private aircraft, and IMO exploit a loophole in the CAR's that should never have been allowed.

Why do you say that? It's not a loophole - it's just not in the regulations. Lot's of things aren't in the regulations that I think should be (like alcohol consumption for AME's). I also can't seen the protection of the public interest argument - licensed pilots are presumably educated enough to make their own decisions what planes to fly.

[747-875]

Good experience here with six people sharing. Trick is have any potential what ifs covered in the written agreement before starting and stick to partners you know and trust. Scheduling hasn't been an issue yet, we have a group calendar and you put your name down for dates and times on first come first serve, with anything being gone more than 24 hours requiring permission from the group. This is where the knowing them helps a lot, if there is overlap for when two people want the airplane being friends we can usually just go for a beer and work out an agreeable deal fairly easy.

[KiloEcho]

Trick is have any potential what ifs covered in the written agreement before starting

Could you elaborate or give some examples of "what ifs" ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

These are the for profit rental of private aircraft, and IMO exploit a loophole in the CAR's that should never have been allowed.

Why do you say that? It's not a loophole - it's just not in the regulations. Lot's of things aren't in the regulations that I think should be (like alcohol consumption for AME's). I also can't seen the protection of the public interest argument - licensed pilots are presumably educated enough to make their own decisions what planes to fly.

For profit rental is the definition of commercial use so the aircraft should be registered and and maintained to a commercial standard not the private one. Private airplanes are by definition not that. So for example it could fly for 500 hours in a year but only get one 100 hr/annual inspection. All of the liability for the operation of the aircraft is placed on the PIC yet 99% of them will not have enough understanding and/or enough visibility on the maintenance status of the aircraft to be able to determine its airworthiness. It is a business that undercuts FTU's who have to meet all the commercial aircraft operating standards. It's the chisel charter of airplane rentals.

[photofly]

I wouldn’t say it’s a loophole. Commercial registration isn’t something an owner can elect to: it’s only available if the owner/operator has a Part 4 or Part 7 Operating Certificate. A pure rental operation neither requires nor allows an owner to get an OC so they are prohibited from commercial registration, regardless of how much profit they make.

Furthermore, when an aircraft that is (otherwise) operated commercially, TC doesn’t concern itself with what renters do or don’t do while flying it; they are not interested in private activities undertaken by renters any more than they are interested in private owners, even if the owner has an OC.

The requirements for commercial operation include a responsible executive, chief pilot (or CFI) and qualified PRM all of which are in place to protect the travelling public and students - not to protect qualified pilots renting airplanes who are rightly assumed not to be ingenues and by virtue of their training and licensing to know (literally) what they are getting in to.

As far as maintenance goes, the relatively relaxed requirements of CAR 625 Appendices B and C as a pre-approved maintenance schedule are a minimum requirement; an owner who rents out their airplane(s) can always elect to carry out more frequent inspections than are mandated. Let the qualified pilot who rents an airplane demand higher maintenance standard and the marketplace will step up to provide it; it’s not the government’s place to regulate risk knowingly undertaken by qualified pilots when they rent from an airplane owner.

. It is a business that undercuts FTU's who have to meet all the commercial aircraft operating standards. It's the chisel charter of airplane rentals.

Not true.

An FTU can own and operate one or more airplanes privately registered and maintained under Standard 625 Appendices B and C (out with all the other commercial restrictions) and rent it out on exactly the same cost basis as any other private owner. The FTU can’t provide flight training in such an aircraft, but neither can any other private owners providing rental, so it’s an exactly level playing field.

[digits_]

I've considered it, but never pursued it. Living in a rural area, the pool of candidates was too small for me to find someone to match with.

Not enough benefits to justify losing that feeling of 'my airplane'. It's very nice not to have to justify trips to anyone, even if it is just a calendar. It takes away from the (illusion of?) freedom that airplane ownership provides.

I might consider renting my plane out to a pilot acquaintance in the future if necessary, but it might just not be worth it in the long run.

[CpnCrunch]

For profit rental is the definition of commercial use so the aircraft should be registered and and maintained to a commercial standard not the private one. Private airplanes are by definition not that. So for example it could fly for 500 hours in a year but only get one 100 hr/annual inspection. All of the liability for the operation of the aircraft is placed on the PIC yet 99% of them will not have enough understanding and/or enough visibility on the maintenance status of the aircraft to be able to determine its airworthiness. It is a business that undercuts FTU's who have to meet all the commercial aircraft operating standards. It's the chisel charter of airplane rentals.

For profit means the rental charges exceed maintenance, insurance, hangar/tiedown expenses, which may or may not be the case. I don't think TC really cares if there is a profit, but your insurance company might. They perk up their ears when you mention anything about renting your plane out, and start asking questions about profit.

Anyway, my attitude is similar to digits. I prefer to just have my plane to myself, so I can fly when I want, and I don't have to worry about whether they're going to cost me an expensive repair.

[Bede]

An FTU can own and operate one or more airplanes privately registered and maintained under Standard 625 Appendices B and C (out with all the other commercial restrictions) and rent it out on exactly the same cost basis as any other private owner. The FTU can’t provide flight training in such an aircraft, but neither can any other private owners providing rental, so it’s an exactly level playing field.

Technically yes, but, man, that would be picking a big fight with TC. I recall a discussion where an air taxi/FTU did some sightseeing and TC wanted everything run through 703 ops (training requirements, OFP, etc )

[photofly]

An FTU can own and operate one or more airplanes privately registered and maintained under Standard 625 Appendices B and C (out with all the other commercial restrictions) and rent it out on exactly the same cost basis as any other private owner. The FTU can’t provide flight training in such an aircraft, but neither can any other private owners providing rental, so it’s an exactly level playing field.

Technically yes, but, man, that would be picking a big fight with TC. I recall a discussion where an air taxi/FTU did some sightseeing and TC wanted everything run through 703 ops (training requirements, OFP, etc )

That isn’t my impression, but, fine, if TC wants to fight on this, bring it on.

Sightseeing is an air transport service: it’s only allowed under an OC, and the argument was which OC was in play, so of course they’d want to regulate that. But with what stick would TC use to beat you over rentals of a privately registered aircraft? For starters, how would they even know? What business records would you be required to show them? Who would you even have to inform? You simply hold a journey log listing the flights, like any other private owner, as recorded by the PIC of each flight. it’s not TC’s right to receive further information about the nature of the flights recorded in it, even if you held such information.

Remember this is a legitimate business activity not captured by any regulation. The Minister wrote the regulations: he can change them any time he likes. Until then it’s quite clear that this isn’t included in TC commercial oversight.

I actually think it would be a positive thing for aviation: if FTUs had a rental-only fleet for lower rates then newly qualified pilots would have a more available fleet of planes for rental at more reasonable prices. Renters would still have access to dispatch and technical facilities. Operators would have more incentive to offer a real rental service, as opposed to the lip-service they pay towards the idea at present. And if there were more planes to rent then there would be more benefit to the average person in learning to fly: hence more customers for the training side of the FTU.

The reason it doesn’t happen, I suspect, is because there isn’t actually that much of a cost saving. Once you have the maintenance and operations infrastructure set up you don’t save a huge amount per hour on reducing the frequency of some of the maintenance inspections. Probably you save a lot less than the opportunity cost lost by not being able to use your rental fleet for instruction during busy times. Which all adds up to the fact that bare airplane rental isn’t much of a moneyspinner, even for private owners. My impression is that the savings are all up front: the cost of remedial inspection and parts replacement to install a newly-bought old privately operated airplane onto an acceptable commercial maintenance schedule can be steep, and you could skip that expense for rental operations.

[Bede]

You are correct but that doesn't mean that they won't fight or make your life miserable. Its like using SOPs that aren't approved by TC (CARs require COM to be approved by TC but SOPs only need to be forwarded to the Minister.)

[photofly]

You are correct but that doesn't mean that they won't fight or make your life miserable. Its like using SOPs that aren't approved by TC (CARs require COM to be approved by TC but SOPs only need to be forwarded to the Minister.)

Yes, an awkward inspector can make your life miserable. But if necessary, the FTU transfers its rental business and private airplanes to another company under the same ownership. There is then no nexus between the two operations. And given the lack of an OC (and any accompanying oversight) for the rental company it would be impossible to register the rental airplanes commercially regardless of what any inspector says.

However, my impression is different to yours: rental operations are not a thing TC cares about.