On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:05:51 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>I've read 91.409 and I understand it to mean that the 10 hour extension
>is solely for the purpose of getting to a maintenance facility to
>conduct the 100 hour inspection.
>
>Does anyone know of enforcement actions that have been taken against
>someone for flying within that 10 hour period...using it as a "grace"
>period.
>
>TIA

Whats the point, if you fly it past the 100 hours, then what ever you
fly it past will be deducted from the next 100 hour due point. Your
really not saving anything.


Scott D.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:49:04 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>In article >, Scott D. <>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>> Whats the point, if you fly it past the 100 hours, then what ever you
>> fly it past will be deducted from the next 100 hour due point. Your
>> really not saving anything.
>
>
>I understand that. There is no point in going past the 100 hour unless
>you're the operator and need the airplane flying instead of sitting in
>the shop.

Precisely why the rule is in effect. Too many operators will choose
to need to have the airplane flying instead of "sitting" being
inspected at the shop.

part 91 is very clear. The time flown past the 100 hour inspection into the 10
hour grace period is deducted from the next 100 hour time period.

Stupid question #1: Why are you doing 100 hour inspections?

Jim



"Eclipsme" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->
->No, I don't believe this is correct. The 100 hours should start from the
->inspection.
->
->Harvey
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Jim Weir > wrote:
>
> > Stupid question #1: Why are you doing 100 hour inspections?
>
> Me? I fly for compensation or hire. <G> The boss thinks we can use the
> 10 hours as a grace period, I had to put my foot down and park the
> airplane.
>
Hopefully carrying passengers. There's no requirement for 100 hours unless
carrying passengers for hire (or when the flight instructor provides the aircraft
for instruction).

Peter > wrote

> There is, I have been told by N-reg registration agents, a requirement
> for a 100hr check if the aircraft is rented out. There is no need to
> carry fare paying passengers.
> So, if the aircraft is owned by a limited company for example, and
> rented to the pilot(s) then 100hr checks are required - so I am told.

That's not what the regulation states....

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,
and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which
that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in
service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been
approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter..

Bob Moore

In article >,
Peter > wrote:





> But what about continuation training for the owner? Let's say you have
> a PPL, and get training for the IR. And pay the instructor to instruct
> you in your own plane. Do you need 100hr checks then?

No. The instructor is not providing the aircraft, you are.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Peter" > wrote in message ...
>

>
> There is, I have been told by N-reg registration agents, a requirement
> for a 100hr check if the aircraft is rented out. There is no need to
> carry fare paying passengers.
>

You were told wrong. The rule is clear. Rental has no bearing on the
situation. The rule says:

"Carrying passengers for hire"
"Flight instruction where the instructor provides the aircraft."

Rental of an aircraft without providing a pilot does not fall in to either
category.

> So, if the aircraft is owned by a limited company for example, and
> rented to the pilot(s) then 100hr checks are required - so I am told.

Again wrong.