From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:31:08 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <1992Sep1.164822.12925@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes,
about tach vs. Hobbs:
> For people who have planes without Hobbs meters do you log tach time or
> some estimate of clock time?

Always log clock time.  The tachometer is not an accurate measure of how
many _hours_ you flew (or acted as pilot in command) of the aircraft.

Consider gliders.  They have neither kind of meter.  Glider pilots still
log time!

> This can be particularly important when your paying an instructor.  For all
> instruction I have had the instructor time was the same as the plane time.
> Does any instructor charge clock time independent of Hobb's or tach?

This is most unusual.  Most instructors I know utilize "logbook time",
i.e. Hobbs or virtual Hobbs time for flight time.  Some instructors charge
for ground time as well, sometimes with the same rate, sometimes with a
different rate.

And, of course, this brings us back to the all-important question

	"Should an instructor charge wet or dry rates?"

(I.e., if it happens to be lunchtime, does the student get to feed the
instructor?)  :-)

> Does anybody with a Hobbs meter log something other than Hobbs time?

When the Hobbs meter is broken, I use my watch.  Indeed, I _always_ use my
watch to "back up" the Hobbs meter -- and to take care of those situations
in which the airplane doesn't have a Hobbs meter.  (Sometimes it takes
until the end of the flight for me to notice this -- which is most
peculiar, since it's said that the reason the Hobbs meter is placed where
it usually is, directly in front of the right seat, is because it's the
most important instrument in the plane for the instructor ... :-( )

[On wet-vs--dry rates and renters "pushing it" to get to cheap gas...]

> I would think an FBO could discourage this with a penalty for pushing it.
> For example with 30 gallon tanks the FBO would reimburse the normal rate
> for refueling the first 25 gallons in each tank, but charge an additional
> $2 per gallon beyond that (this would require off-field receipts to be
> broken out on a per tank basis, though the principle still works if the
> total is simply divided by number of tanks).

This wouldn't work.  A renter could easily say "I need two receipts --
one with the first 5 gallons and one for the rest".  Or, less
obviously, "Gee, my credit card is sort of full, and I wanted to pay
cash, but I don't have enough.  Here's $10 for part of it, and could
you put the rest on my credit card here?"

Another possibility to encourage "wet" renters to buy less-expensive
gas, but not to "push it", would to have some sort of sliding rebate --
if the renter buys fuel at or above the fuel price at the home field,
it's covered in its entirety; if the renter _saves_ money, 50% of the
savings is deducted from the renter's bill.  (100% wouldn't work out
for the aircraft owner, who would end up getting soaked for the more
expensive fuel but wouldn't reap the benefit of less-expensive fuel ...
unless, of course, the home airport had incredibly expensive fuel!)

							Geoff
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:57:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Sea Hawker/Osprey (was Re: Glass Goose)
Organization: HP General Systems Division