Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Borrowing an aircraft - is it "renting"?

In other words, is renting still renting if the renter doesn’t pay?

It could be argued he/she is getting a benefit in the way of hour building.

Obviously this is all assuming that the pilot is qualified on type and insured to fly the plane.

For the UK, I have never seen this question answered.

Last Edited by Peter at 20 Nov 14:01
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Without getting too deep into the semantics of language, I’d say your description is more like “using” than renting if he doesnt pay. Renting implies some transaction of payment or other reward.

Does it matter if the pilot benefits? I’d call that lucky What I was trying to understand was if there was a problem where a pilot flies someone else’s plane for free. We know a non-commercial pilot must not receive any financial reward greater than his share of the costs (I am sure it is described better than that though), but if they fly for nothing – is that a problem?

I once used a club aircraft for free because I was going to use my plane to help them with a kids open day thing, and my plane was delayed in getting it’s 50 hour check done. No way was I going to pay a greater cost to help them because they delayed the availability of my plane. But I got lucky because I didnt have to pay to use my plane either so I got one hour or so for free.

Legal definition of rent

Money or other consideration paid by one person to another in exchange for the exclusive use and enjoyment of whatever it is they are renting, e.g. property, land, aircraft, car, horse, jewellery etc etc

Therefore a person not handing over money or other consideration to another person is not renting even if they have exclusive use and enjoyment of that persons “property”.

If the rentee/borrower is not qualified could be argued it is not the rentor’s/lenders problem….obviously in the event of damage to the aircraft, 3rd party or other property then the insurance company wont pay out and liability is the rentor’s/lenders; who then in turn would sue the rentee/borrower. The caa would throw the book at the rentee/borrower as surely it is not for the rentor/lender to police who rents/borrows their aircraft…..but no one would be stupid enough not to check out the rentee/borrower now would they!!!!

EGBJ, EGBP, EGTW, EGVN, EGBS

One funny point is that UK’s “aerial work” definition does not specify the direction in which the money (or other valuable consideration) flows in, and clearly the renter is getting a benefit, in terms of hour building (towards a hypothetical professional qualification) and anyway is getting a big benefit of getting free flying time which is probably worth a hundred quid an hour or whatever.

I have known PPLs who were “used” by a school to ferry planes for servicing. For curious reasons the schools didn’t use local firms for the work. These pilots used to pay some much reduced rate – I recall it was just the fuel. But they did pay something so clearly it was renting in those cases.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Borrowing a plane is clearly not rentng.

EGTK Oxford

As long as I don’t live in North Korea I will borrow my airplane to anybody I want. Actually I do it for years now …

Sorry, of course I meant I will LEND it to anyboy I want (damn languages, I always make the sae mistakes …)

The issue of renting is to do with the expectation that the renter pays for an aircraft of merchantable quality i.e. it meets certain airworthiness requirements and is therefore a safety matter, hence the involvement of the Safety Regulator. If you borrow an aircraft its like borrowing anything else and its up to you to make sure its safe.
So far as benifits in terms of hours, free flying etc, are concerned, then the only person who might be even vaguely interested is the tax man!

Peter : is renting still renting if the renter doesn’t pay?

Is it renting if you pay the actual cost of the flight to the owner (provision for the engine, the propeller, your pro-rata share for the next maintenance visit?…), excluding any fixed charge such as hangar, insurance etc… which the owner will pay even if you don’t fly with his aircraft? In this case the payment corresponds to a compensation for costs the owner will have to support because of your flight, no?
In other words is it renting if the owner makes no profit from your flight and you simply pay to him what your flight will actually cost to him?

Last Edited by TThierry at 21 Nov 09:02
SE France

If any payment is made to the owner then you are renting the aircraft. The only exception being fuel that you put in for your usage, oil and landing fees. Any contribution towards upkeep is money for the purpose of the flight and renders the flight public transport for airworthiness purposes under UK law. Not sure what the position is under European Law.

22 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top