Flying school aircraft develops fault - who pays?

[teknow]

All

I'm a "returning" PPL and have an interesting connundrum.

I went flying recently in a school aircraft, with an instructor on-board on a navex.

All was going well, 20 minutes into the flight, knew exactly where I was etc :ok:

Then the plane develops a technical fault, so instructor makes executive decision to abandon the navex and return to base.

The plane we were flying was 3 hours off its next scheduled overhaul ... I had to foot the bill for the 40 minutes or so airborne even though their plane goes faulty ...

I paid for the time without argument as I still have training to do with the school but being a novice, not sure what the "done thing" is ... Are they right to make me pay or should I have been a little more vocal and expected some kind of compromise on the price?

[Whopity]

You flew the aircraft, you can log the hours, you pay the bill; as a returning PPL you should be aware these things happen. Should the instructor go unpaid because the aircraft developed a problem? I see no conundrum.

[teknow]

as a returning PPL you should be aware these things happen

i'm aware these things happen, but didn't have a great deal of experience before finances dictated I gave up flying for some years. This is a situation I've never encountered before, due to lack of experience, thus the question.

I'm sure if the bill had been split the instructor would have been paid and fuel costs covered (for example).

The only reason I embarked on the trip was to complete the navex, I had no need to put 40 minutes in my log book. Whilst I understand these things happen, my viewpoint is this is why flying school charge so much and these things should be taken into account by them.

I didn't argue with the school and won't argue -- I just think that you hire an aircraft with a specific purpose in mind and if you can't achieve that purpose, then like anything you've paid for a service which wasn't delivered in full.

[dublinpilot]

I can see it from both points of view.

But it seems to be normal practice to pay for the time flown in such circumstances.

[abgd]

It's all valuable experience. If your instructor was good (s)he presumably used it to teach diversions or some aspects of decision-making. Was it a practice for the long navex? If so I can understand why you're miffed as it's an expensive thing to have to repeat.

What actually went wrong?

[teknow]

Appreciate the replies - I don't want to be arguing with anyone and figured it would be one of those things put down to experience. Safety first and all that. :ok:

In terms of the fault, carb heat control kept dropping (a bit like if you didn't tighten the throttle friction the level could move!)

Could see a drop when applying the carb heat but clearly it wasn't as it was supposed to be. No rough running or anything untoward and a good safe judgement call by the instructor in my opinion.

Had I been flying solo, I would have turned back.

Just "one of those things" I suppose, but an expensive one at £90! :ugh: Yet one I won't forget!

In terms of:

If your instructor was good (s)he presumably used it to teach diversions or some aspects of decision-making
Yes he did - I had overlooked that actually and that makes me feel immediately less peaved! I'll shut up now! ;)

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Aircraft flies from A to B across a stretch of water.

Aircraft develops an engine fault on the ground at B which precludes a safe return to A (fault separately assessed and confirmed by Licensed Engineer).

Flying school state that unless the pilot returns the aircraft to A (across the water) they will charge for any costs in connection with the maintenance issue (including the cost of flying AOG spares to B).

Who pays?

[dera]

School pays on that example. They might argue and complain, but have no ground whatsoever to claim the costs.

[John R81]

Dera - morally I agre with you.

Have you ever seen a poor (financially speaking) lawyer?

In practice one should always read the contract. If the terms are as stated and they are clear then when you sign for the hire you accept the terms. It might be difficult to convince a court otherwise if the school then take action to recoup the costs of recovery. You might win - you hired a serviceable aircraft and this one is not serviceable - you might even get your costs of hotel / returning home; all very unclear unless specified in the contract.

If you don't like those terms, find another aircraft where the terms are different. If something is not covered, ask before you hire and either get it witnessed or get it in writing.

[englishal]

I'd have no problem paying for that 40 minutes as that 40 minutes is a very valuable bit of experience for you to file away for later. You might well have learned more on that flight than many other navex's.

[Steevo25]

For me, the answer is that it depends. For the aircraft that goes faulty at location B, I would expect the school to pay. After all, you are renting the aircraft of which they are carrying out the maintenance and making sure it is in an airworthy condition.

Regarding paying when the aircraft goes wrong during an exercise it would depend what stage I was at. I was at the end of my training and to complete certain exercises to finish and having to duplicate it again then I would be a little bit hacked off. If I needed more hours anyway and would have had to flown that time then I would put it down to experience flying as it wouldn't be costing me anymore money through no fault of my own.

[mad_jock]

For me it depends what the fault was. And if I thought they were taking the piss.

ie did I think the instructor had been told to get his arse back in under an hour because they had to get another couple of lessons out of it before going to check otherwise they would have to cancel them.

What was the fault?

[Ka6crpe]

You learned plenty from that lesson. Maybe you learnt enough to save your life in the future. Pay up and be happy.

[jollyrog]

Who flew the aircraft back? Did the Instructor take control? What was the defect?

I'm probably out of tune with most here, but when it developed a fault, you were no longer able to conduct the exercise you were expecting and paying for. It might be fair to charge you for the first 20 mins and a landing, but I think the return leg wasn't training, it was a "forced" return to base over which you had no control or decision and it's their problem.

If the defect is something that could/should have reasonably been picked up on the "A" check, then you shouldn't pay at all.

[FANS]

It's another example of the shambles that is PPL flying. The flying school makes low margins and therefore can't really afford to not charge for time used as a general rule but your whole exercise needs to be repeated - so you pay twice but have the "experience."

If you hired a car that got half way to where you wanted, you wouldn't pay for it but flying breaks the rules and like you said, you don't want an argument when there's more business needed.

[mad_jock]

I have heard a cracking line from a school.

Its illegal for a none commercial pilot to fly and log anything without paying because it would then be a benefit in kind and be against the law under the cost sharing rules. So you have to pay for the flight even though you had to return without actually doing a lesson.

[flybymike]

So BOGOF lessons are a definite no no then.
What about two half price lessons?

[Whopity]

Just "one of those things" I suppose, but an expensive one at £90! Why exactly are you trying to get your licence back? Surely so that you can fly aeroplanes! You may not have achieved what you set out to do but you have had the value of a flight and have seen a problem which you now know how to deal with in the future.

The profit margin on PPL training and hire is very small whilst the costs associated with it are continually rising. If ATC put you into the hold or tell you to go around, you will fly extra time but surely that's why you are trying to get your licence back, so that you can fly.

You cannot compare PPL flying with car hire; you would have to compare an AOC operation for some level of equivalence, where, if you charted a flight and it went tech you would not be charged for the replacement flight but the cost per hour is probably 4 times as much.

It's another example of the shambles that is PPL flying. PPL flying is an attempt by many not so well off people to enjoy aviation; pricing finds its own level, many new up market clubs with new aircraft have rapidly gone bust.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

But it seems to be normal practice to pay for the time flown in such circumstances.
I wasn't charged once when we abandoned the flight during the climb-out, remained in the circuit and landed again, and I'd had a total of a few seconds at the controls airborne.

[dont overfil]

Surely it depends on the scenario. Must we have a rule for everything? Does nobody know how to negotiate anymore?

D.O.

[tmmorris]

Quite right. And in a more extreme version I wasn't charged when we abandoned the flight after rough running in the power checks even though that school charged per Hobbs hour so we did actually run up a bill (and I logged it as we taxied intending to take off...)

[MacSki]

For me a similar question over weather. On a few occasions during my PPL my instructor deemed the weather was appropriate for circuit flying but on getting to circuit height it clearly wasn't and we landed after one circuit. I was charged for the time as it was a logbook entry although I now look back and think I had a few hours I didn't benefit from in my logbook especially as I was over minimum hours on getting my licence.

My view was that was how it went, you trust the instructor but they are human and every experience is valuable in different ways? For me the question is did they know before setting off, if no then it's fair if yes.....

Interestingly a few months later post PPL I agreed to help reposition an aircraft for maintenance, two planes left the airfield and we had to turn back due to low cloud. I claimed 30minutes for my logbook but the club couldn't charge me, usually the agreement is 50:50 on costs on repositioning.

[Ebbie 2003]

I don't really think you have a cause for complaint - you got logable time you did navigate to the point at which the fault manifested and presumably back to the airport.

If you were a solo as a ppl on a qualifying cross country (with a land at two other airports requirement) and got 75% though the route racking up two and a half hours of flight time and knowing you have to do it again it would be possible to see how this, especially if it was not a one time thing during training could be an issue for someone on a budget.

That said - these things happen - were you in a 30/40 year old plane with high overall hours and use (they are such a bargain aren't they?) or maybe an SR22 fresh out of the box at two /three times the price?

The point, implied by the original post but not expressly stated, is that the flight school had failed to provide what you paid for - in order for this to be the case you would have to have had an express promise from them that their plane would not "go tech" on you - if asked to make such a promise by someone renting my plane I would make it but I'd also double the rate, people get paid to take risk - you take the risk and you "get paid" by having an acceptable rental rate.

The fact is many things can interrupt plans from technical issues, weather, illness etc - they are part of flying - we all know there are part of the reality, this percentage of abortive flight must be factored into firstly, the decision to fly in the first place and secondly, to rent a particular airplane.

You have you PPL so while your planned trip could not be completed you actually suffered no losses other that a little frustration of a plan not executed - but you did fly, you did navigate but also got the real life experience of a semi-emergency (I would count that as probably more valuable than the abortive nav ex - of course if the airport you were going to had a 50% off coupon say on their burgers, well then you really have been had over!).

One rather silly question - why were you flying with a paid instructor - if I feel rusty on cross country I would fly with another PPL and share the cost - much cheaper all round?

[S-Works]

(and I logged it as we taxied intending to take off...)


But didn't actually take off so no flight took place...... :ugh::ugh:

[xrayalpha]

OK, I run a (microlight) flying school.

Reputation is important to me. I, personally, think it has a cash worth.

So when this sort of thing happens:

I would ask the student to pay based on what they got out of the lesson.

So scenario A:

Problem on power checks, time on the Hobbs, no pay.

Problem in the air: a percentage - maybe even 100% - of the cost depending on what the student got out of it. (as has been said, real experience on a real problem is huge benefit)

And yes, we have had an aircraft stuck on Bute - so a water crossing involved.

Our solution? Fly to another field to pick up a part and someone to fit it, fly another aircraft t Bute to pick up the student and then get it all back here. And offered the trial flying lesson student a rebook at no extra charge.

As it happened, they declined saying it was a really fascinating experience!