I can tell you from first hand experience that the FSDO in San Antonio
does not read the rules the same way.

I was "leasing-back" my Cherokee to a local school for instruction.
They had three or four planes there that were past TBO. And they had
a fleet of Thomahawks, one in particular was more than 50% past TBO.

This particular school owner was in deep **** with the local FSDO for
putting off, pencil-whipping. or other such **** on maintenance.
Because of it, the local FSDO was all over him and the maintenance
records. I was working closely at the time with the A&P there keeping
my plane up and flying. I know for a FACT that the Inspector knew the
hours on that Thomahawk as well as three other planes that were past
TBO. But nothing was said in that respect.

Now, in deference to that owner -- that Thomahawk was the best running
of the five he had. It climbed even better than the one with the STC
horsepower upgrade. All inspections were good, no metal in the oil,
and just no indication that it needed rebuild. True, it had a LOT of
hours on it -- but it ran great.

Oh, and it was being used for both instruction (under both parts 61
and 141) and also used for rental occasionally. FSDO didn't say a
thing...


Chuck
PA28-180



On 18 Aug 2005 13:57:02 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

I am quite sure that one can offer an aircraft for hire with an
instructor under part 91 with an engine that has gone beyond TBO.
However, someone I know called the FSDO in California and asked, and I
was astounded when he was told that they told him if he was going to do
instruction for hire the airplane engine had to be rebuilt if beyond
TBO! I maintain that is erroneous information. I am not sure how to
"proove" this. Certainly he needs 100 hour inspections, but so long as
the mechanic will sign off the 100 hour, and annual, he is good to go.
Any help here?