Re: Mandatory 100hr checks - when? Also Dry Lease

[Michael]

> It's always been believed that if an aircraft (US registered) is
> rented out, a 100hr check is required.

People believe all sorts of things that aren't true, including this.

> I am now trying to find a reference to this in the FARs.

You will be looking a long time.

> The above text doesn't seem to apply to plain rental. It describes
> carrying a person for hire (implying that the passenger is paying)
and
> offering flight training in the said aircraft.

This is correct. Those are the situation that require a 100-hour.
Rental does not.

Michael

[Dude]

For the record, I will disagree without even opening the FARs.

I realize that this doesn't really help, but it will save you a lot of pain
not to act on this belief.

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It's always been believed that if an aircraft (US registered) is
>> rented out, a 100hr check is required.
>
> People believe all sorts of things that aren't true, including this.
>
>> I am now trying to find a reference to this in the FARs.
>
> You will be looking a long time.
>
>> The above text doesn't seem to apply to plain rental. It describes
>> carrying a person for hire (implying that the passenger is paying)
> and
>> offering flight training in the said aircraft.
>
> This is correct. Those are the situation that require a 100-hour.
> Rental does not.
>
> Michael
>

[Doug]

You have the correct FAR. If it is not required in the FAR, it is not
required. So for just rental, no instruction FOR HIRE (free instruction
OK), you do not need a 100 hour inspection.

Most planes that are rented are used for paid instruction, so most
rentals require 100 hours. Also there is the INSURANCE company, which
may REQUIRE it. So there may be other issues.

[Michael]

Dude wrote:
> For the record, I will disagree without even opening the FARs.
>
> I realize that this doesn't really help, but it will save you a lot
of pain
> not to act on this belief.

This is called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It is rarely seen in
this pure a form, so it's worth pointing out. Usually it is more
sophisticated - mixed in with 'reasons' that don't stand up to logical
scrutiny - but the basic elements are here.

The basic elements are - a statement that is factually wrong (sually
supported with any number of logical fallacies, but in this case
presented in its pure form) and a warning that acting on the assumption
that the factually wrong statement is indeed factually wrong will cause
one problems (usually fleshed out, but in this case left open). The
goal is to spread FUD.

So who benefits from FUD? In an absolute sense, nobody. But in a
relative sense, FUD benefits those who are not willing or able to
figure out what they can actually do and where the limits actually are,
and thus give up some operational flexibility so they can be sure
they're not overstepping some line. It sucks being the only one giving
up that operational flexibility. It feels more comfortable if there
are lots of others doing the same. Then you can say that those who
don't give up that flexibility are taking chances, foolish, etc. They
may also be able to underbid you.

It is actually quite a common practice for FBO's that do a lot of
rental (as opposed to almost exclusively dual instruction) business to
allow some planes to fly past the 100 hour if the maintenance shop is
busy. Such a plane can still be rented, but not for instruction. As
long as they can keep track of which is which, there is no problem. Of
course this operational flexibility gives an advantage over an FBO that
will either do a 100-hour or ground the plane, come hell or high water.
On the other hand, it means the mechanic of said FBO has less
leverage.

Just something to think about.

Michael

[Scott D.]

On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote:


>It is actually quite a common practice for FBO's that do a lot of
>rental (as opposed to almost exclusively dual instruction) business to
>allow some planes to fly past the 100 hour if the maintenance shop is
>busy. Such a plane can still be rented, but not for instruction. As
>long as they can keep track of which is which, there is no problem. Of
>course this operational flexibility gives an advantage over an FBO that
>will either do a 100-hour or ground the plane, come hell or high water.
> On the other hand, it means the mechanic of said FBO has less
>leverage.
>
>Just something to think about.
>
>Michael

The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
complied with then they are not airworthy.

I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
sure the ADs are complied with.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Bill Zaleski]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:04:14 -0600, Scott D. <> wrote:

>On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote:
>
>
>>It is actually quite a common practice for FBO's that do a lot of
>>rental (as opposed to almost exclusively dual instruction) business to
>>allow some planes to fly past the 100 hour if the maintenance shop is
>>busy. Such a plane can still be rented, but not for instruction. As
>>long as they can keep track of which is which, there is no problem. Of
>>course this operational flexibility gives an advantage over an FBO that
>>will either do a 100-hour or ground the plane, come hell or high water.
>> On the other hand, it means the mechanic of said FBO has less
>>leverage.
>>
>>Just something to think about.
>>
>>Michael
>
>The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
>AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
>are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
>complied with then they are not airworthy.
>
>I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
>and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
>doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
>sure the ADs are complied with.
>
>
>Scott D

>To email remove spamcatcher

Not true. The seat AD is only due at 100 hours if the aircraft
requires a 100 inspection. If not, 12 months is the allowed interval,
regardless of hours flown.

Bill Zaleski A&P I.A.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:04:14 -0600, Scott D. <> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It is actually quite a common practice for FBO's that do a lot of
> >>rental (as opposed to almost exclusively dual instruction) business to
> >>allow some planes to fly past the 100 hour if the maintenance shop is
> >>busy. Such a plane can still be rented, but not for instruction. As
> >>long as they can keep track of which is which, there is no problem. Of
> >>course this operational flexibility gives an advantage over an FBO that
> >>will either do a 100-hour or ground the plane, come hell or high water.
> >> On the other hand, it means the mechanic of said FBO has less
> >>leverage.
> >>
> >>Just something to think about.
> >>
> >>Michael
> >
> >The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
> >AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
> >are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
> >complied with then they are not airworthy.
> >
> >I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
> >and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
> >doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
> >sure the ADs are complied with.
> >
> >
> >Scott D
>
> >To email remove spamcatcher
>
> Not true. The seat AD is only due at 100 hours if the aircraft
> requires a 100 inspection. If not, 12 months is the allowed interval,
> regardless of hours flown.
>
> Bill Zaleski A&P I.A.


And if the rails are replaced the AD starts after 1,000 hours TIS.

[Dude]

It don't matter to me, but I wouldn't try it around my FSDO.

They live to spread FUD, and enforce it.

Now, if you are overseas, I have NO IDEA what level of enforcement and
liability you have.

My fear, without uncertainty or doubt, would be that the plaintiff would
claim that it is normal for rental planes to have 100 hour inspections. So
the fact that the rental pilot flew into the ground in a thunderstorm is
most likely due to the lack of an inspection. The question is whether they
can drag you back to a US court.




"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dude wrote:
>> For the record, I will disagree without even opening the FARs.
>>
>> I realize that this doesn't really help, but it will save you a lot
> of pain
>> not to act on this belief.
>
> This is called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It is rarely seen in
> this pure a form, so it's worth pointing out. Usually it is more
> sophisticated - mixed in with 'reasons' that don't stand up to logical
> scrutiny - but the basic elements are here.
>
> The basic elements are - a statement that is factually wrong (sually
> supported with any number of logical fallacies, but in this case
> presented in its pure form) and a warning that acting on the assumption
> that the factually wrong statement is indeed factually wrong will cause
> one problems (usually fleshed out, but in this case left open). The
> goal is to spread FUD.
>
> So who benefits from FUD? In an absolute sense, nobody. But in a
> relative sense, FUD benefits those who are not willing or able to
> figure out what they can actually do and where the limits actually are,
> and thus give up some operational flexibility so they can be sure
> they're not overstepping some line. It sucks being the only one giving
> up that operational flexibility. It feels more comfortable if there
> are lots of others doing the same. Then you can say that those who
> don't give up that flexibility are taking chances, foolish, etc. They
> may also be able to underbid you.
>
> It is actually quite a common practice for FBO's that do a lot of
> rental (as opposed to almost exclusively dual instruction) business to
> allow some planes to fly past the 100 hour if the maintenance shop is
> busy. Such a plane can still be rented, but not for instruction. As
> long as they can keep track of which is which, there is no problem. Of
> course this operational flexibility gives an advantage over an FBO that
> will either do a 100-hour or ground the plane, come hell or high water.
> On the other hand, it means the mechanic of said FBO has less
> leverage.
>
> Just something to think about.
>
> Michael
>

[Dude]

> was in contravention of any rules, no matter where they come from.
>
> As you suggest, the change of prosecution is tiny. The lack of an
> insurance payout after say a gear up landing is going to be far more
> painful.
>
>

And there is the rub, I would bet dollars to donuts that the insurance
company demands 100 hours whether you do instruction or not. Furthermore,
it is rather impractical NOT to offer instruction. Otherwise, how will you
ensure the capabilities of the US airmen that want to rent?

If its allowed by the FARs, and you can figure out how to do it, then go for
it. I would bet that it would be easier just to do the 100 hour inspections
in the end.

[George Patterson]

Dude wrote:
> It don't matter to me, but I wouldn't try it around my FSDO.

So, just respond with more FUD.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Dude]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:TpG7e.14515$Xm3.12063@trndny01...
> Dude wrote:
>> It don't matter to me, but I wouldn't try it around my FSDO.
>
> So, just respond with more FUD.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

This is a perfectly appropriate place for FUD. Failure to dot the i's and
cross the t's can get ugly. I have recently lost a couple battles with
regulatory and legal types, so maybe I am overcautious at the moment.

[Dude]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote
>
>>And there is the rub, I would bet dollars to donuts that the insurance
>>company demands 100 hours whether you do instruction or not.
>
> It doesn't.
>

They know you are renting out the plane?

>>Furthermore,
>>it is rather impractical NOT to offer instruction. Otherwise, how will
>>you
>>ensure the capabilities of the US airmen that want to rent?
>
> In this particular case, they already need to be legal to fly the
> type. This is achieved by them already having had what is called over
> here a "complex checkout" (on some other aircraft, with an
> instructor). This bit IS required by my insurance.

over here a "complex checkout" is not necessarily in the same model. It
sounds like you are saying they already have experience in the same model.

Still, I wonder. I unless you are talking about something really simple, or
know the instructor that did the sign off, are you really going to believe
the log book?

>
> No formal "instruction" is required after that; I would come along as
> a passenger, with the pilot as PIC.

This has red flags all over it. I would be worried over here that they
would try to claim that you are either doing virtual instruction or virtual
charter.


>
>>If its allowed by the FARs, and you can figure out how to do it, then go
>>for
>>it. I would bet that it would be easier just to do the 100 hour
>>inspections
>>in the end.
>
> If it's not in the FARs then where is it?
>
> The more general question is this: surely the requirement for a 100hr
> check (in the circumstances where is IS needed e.g. when using the
> aircraft for training) exists only between the 100hr point and the
> next annual. Let's say the aircraft has done 70 hours since its
> annual, then for the next 30 it can be used for training. After that
> it can't - until the next annual. This particular plane does about
> 150hrs/year, so it is only in the last 1/3 of that that it could not
> be used for training.
>

This is a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that at such low hours you
may easily avoid any scrutiny. The curse is that you are making so little
money that it may not be worth the risks. If I were your insurer, and you
got in an accident with a renter as PIC, and you in the plane, my first
impulse would be to not pay because you are instructing or chartering. You
may likely prevail, but at an expense.


>
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

[Dude]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote
>
>>They know you are renting out the plane?
>
> Of course. One has to make a full disclosure to the insurer; under UK
> insurance law they can walk away from any claim otherwise.
>

Believe it or not, I have had this conversation before with people who had a
different answer. In the US, though.

>>over here a "complex checkout" is not necessarily in the same model.
>
> Same here.
>
>>Still, I wonder. I unless you are talking about something really simple,
>>or
>>know the instructor that did the sign off, are you really going to believe
>>the log book?
>
> That's a good point. Take the case of a flying club, or any group
> sharing an aircraft. Let's say they take on board a new member. They
> will want to check out that he can really fly. Are you saying that the
> checkout flight must be done with an instructor?

That would be different. That's a club. You are doing a "dry lease" which
is really close to being a "dry rental".

Around here, there are several types of clubs, and ones that operate like
you do are generally doing 100 hour inspections to keep the Feds happy.
Clubs with very few members who are usually equity partners would get by
with this arrangement, but not non-equity clubs. My FSDO would be happy to
call that instruction without a CFI license.


That's not what
> happens in reality, especially if the aircraft is something reasonably
> advanced when few if any available instructors will be familiar with
> it anyway.

That is not the point. When money is changing hands, the Feds get more
strict about what is "charter" and "instruction". The more it looks like
duck, the more it will be treated like a duck. And you are looking a lot
like a duck who is dodging the 100 hr. and CFI bullets with a "dry lease".

I don't think the checkout flight needs to be done with a
> legal instructor IF the new member (or new renter if the group works
> by renting to its members, as some do) is already technically legal to
> be PIC in that aircraft.
>

I believe its a fine line, and I would want a memo from someone at the FAA
before I went forth and tried it.

>>This has red flags all over it. I would be worried over here that they
>>would try to claim that you are either doing virtual instruction or
>>virtual
>>charter.
>
> Please see above. I don't think they could claim that, since no
> instruction is legally required.
>
> Why would someone suggest that charter is taking place? The pilot
> being checked out is paying for the flight; he's not a paying
> passenger.
>
> This is an area which I have discussed with my insurance broker and he
> is free to check with the insurance company. Their lawyers are the
> best there are. But they won't give an opinion; they just say "you
> have to remain legal". Really useful!
>

Their lack of wanting to give an opinion could be overly defensive, or it
could be telling. I think they just don't really know what the FAA guy who
stumbles upon you will say. Also, they want to be able to hedge their bets
if you crash. At any rate, more than one flight school has been busted for
"134 and a half" charters. This is where a pilot or student pilot flies
with an instructor in order to get somewhere rather than to really have a
lesson.

So anyway, your guy is not even an instructor. I suppose you could do a
"demonstration flight" in order to sell the lease. This would only require
the checkout pilot to have 200 hours, but he is PIC for the entire flight.

If the plane is ever has to be flown back to your airport because it is left
elsewhere by a renter, then the pilot fetching it will need to be commercial
(unless it is the owner). However, if you send him along with the renter to
bring the plane back, then he had better not sit up front or you risk
getting nailed as a 134 and a half.

Bottom line from me to you is that this is not an area where I would ask
forgiveness rather than permission.



>
> ------------------
> If you use Micro$oft Outlook, please do not add my email address
> to your address book. Many viruses extract addresses from
> Outlook address books. Thank you.