Greetings you FAA mavens
Wayne G. Walker <walker@...>
Hi Dave, Don and All:toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I recently went through a fairly comprehensive examination of this very
issue -- can a friend lease me his Long-EZ, if not on an hourly basis, on a
lease-purchase or conditional sales contract basis?
There isn't much I could find in the FAR's except for the following
"Commercial operator" means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages
in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other
than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part
375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for
"compensation or hire", the test applied is whether the carriage by air is
merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major
enterprise for profit.
That, coupled with the general prohibition for using experimentals for
compensation or hire, didn't seem to exclude our contemplated lease
So, just to be sure, we contacted Avemco. The agent checked with his
supervisor. They didn't see any problem as long as we sent Avemco a copy of
the lease for their files.
That was good, but I decided to check further. So we called the Van Nuys
office of the FAA. One of the information specialists took my call. He did
a little research and got back to me. "No problem," he said.
Are you sure? I asked.
"Of, course. Such a lease is incidental and not the primary business of the
"What if I give him money?" I asked.
"We don't want to hear about it," he replied.
"Will you put all of this in writing?" I asked.
In the end, we decided to hold off on the lease. My personal opinion is a
lease purchase would be all right, but an occasional lease with some
specified hourly rate, might not. Better still would be a conditional sales
contract with all respsonsibility for insurance held by the purchaser. But
in any event, if there is a claim under the insurance policy, I am confident
there would be a legal challenge instigated by the insurer.
I also decided that before going down either of these paths, I would want to
see written confirmation from an attorney at FAA headquarters, as well as
from the insurer, agreeing to the coverage regardless of how any FAA agent
interpreted the regs.
Wayn "Luke" Walker
[mailto:owner-canard-aviators@...]On Behalf Of D. Rothrock
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [c-a] Greetings you FAA mavens
[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
My Airworthiness certificate states under (B) No person may conduct flight
tests under this certificate: (1) Carrying persons or property for hire.
No where else does it make reference to commercial use except on Form
8130-7. (Operating Limitations). There it states in No. 13. This aircraft
shall not be used for glider towing, banner towing, or intentional parachute
Amateur built aircraft for any commercial purpose - i.e. we can't lease it..............
-For details on sponsors of this list, copyrights, and how to remove
-yourself from this list, please visit:
(c) 1997,1998, 1999 Canard Aviators. support@...
David A Froble
Ok, I'm not an attorney.toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If you notified the insurance company, in writing, certified mail, etc, of
exactly what you were doing, and then they took your money, they have
ipmplicitly accepted the situation.
If you notify the FAA, in writing, certified mail, etc, of exactly what you were
doing, and what date you planned to commence doing so, and specifically asked in
writing for them to notify you if there would be any problem, and they didn't
notify you about any problem, then they have implicitly not disappproved of the
idea. You would have to have given them reasonable time to respond. (Note the
possibility of them responding negatively, after something occurs.)
What is not prohibited, is allowed. Until you go to court. Then each side
argues their case, and a decision is made. Still, if you have to engage an
attorney, you lose, regardless of the outcome.
Were justice to prevail, the above actions would be very strong arguments in any
legal proceedings. The burden of proof of wrongdoing should be squarely on the
shoulders of the other side. Note that Bob Hoover seemed to have the arguments
on his side, and the FAA deemed itself above the law.
First, I'd check all this with an attorney.
Second, what makes you think there's anything that an insurance company or the
FAA would not challenge, should they get the idea to do so, regardless of
anything they previously agreed to?
"Wayne G. Walker" wrote:
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: davef@...
T-Soft, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486