100 Hour Inspection Question

FryGuy wrote:

I talked with the head A&P Mechanic at the
FBO and he said "for hire" only means if their are paying passengers.

He's correct. The reg states "carrying any person for hire", and that's what it
means.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


FryGuy wrote:

I talked with the head A&P Mechanic at the
FBO and he said "for hire" only means if their are paying passengers.

He's correct. The reg states "carrying any person for hire", and that's
what it
means.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money
prolonging
the problem.


I just got out of A&P school earlier this year, so I am no expert by any
means, but one of the things that they drilled into our heads during FAR's
was that a plane for hire and/or flight lessons from a flight school, fall
under the 100 hour inspection.

For what it's worth...

"Chuck" wrote in message link.net...


I just got out of A&P school earlier this year, so I am no expert by any
means, but one of the things that they drilled into our heads during FAR's
was that a plane for hire and/or flight lessons from a flight school, fall
under the 100 hour inspection.

Well they drilled misinformation into your head. Rental without instructor or pilot
does not fall under the 100 hour requirement. Here is the rule straight from 91.409:

(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

Note it says nothing about offering the aircraft for hire, it says CARRYING ANY PERSON
FOR HIRE. This means passengers on demand or for compensation.

Here is a clarifcation from the FAA Counsel that reaffirms the rules mean what the
say:

May 3, 1984
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service

Dear Mr. Rackers
This is in reply to your request of May 1, 1984, that we render an opinion regarding the applicability
of the 100-hour inspections requirement of Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to rental aircraft.
Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides that, except as noted in Section 91.169(c),
a person may not operate an aircraft carrying any person, other than a crewmember, for hire, and may
not give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides unless, within the previous 100
hours of time in service, the aircraft has received either an annual or a 100-hour inspection.
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and does not provide the pilot, that
aircraft is not required by Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour i
nspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only when the aircraft is carrying a
person for hire, or when a person is providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.
If there are any questions, please advise us.

Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph T. Brennan
Associate Regional Counsel

Once again Ron shows the world he has nothing better to do with his
time than to spend it breaking other user's balls.

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections. Now go onto the net
and see if you can find which insurance carrier this FBO has and then
see if you can find a 19 year old memo stating that it is absolutely,
positively not a requirement!

And since the guy can't get the plane, this is a mute point. Best
thing to do is to take his business elsewhere, since this particular
FBO doesn't need the money.

Here's some choices for you, Ron. Either get a real life, go to
school to get your JD, or get your own TV show where you can be the
head law partner!


On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:53:11 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Chuck" wrote in message link.net...


I just got out of A&P school earlier this year, so I am no expert by any
means, but one of the things that they drilled into our heads during FAR's
was that a plane for hire and/or flight lessons from a flight school, fall
under the 100 hour inspection.

Well they drilled misinformation into your head. Rental without instructor or pilot
does not fall under the 100 hour requirement. Here is the rule straight from 91.409:

(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

Note it says nothing about offering the aircraft for hire, it says CARRYING ANY PERSON
FOR HIRE. This means passengers on demand or for compensation.

Here is a clarifcation from the FAA Counsel that reaffirms the rules mean what the
say:

May 3, 1984
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service

Dear Mr. Rackers
This is in reply to your request of May 1, 1984, that we render an opinion regarding the applicability
of the 100-hour inspections requirement of Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to rental aircraft.
Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides that, except as noted in Section 91.169(c),
a person may not operate an aircraft carrying any person, other than a crewmember, for hire, and may
not give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides unless, within the previous 100
hours of time in service, the aircraft has received either an annual or a 100-hour inspection.
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and does not provide the pilot, that
aircraft is not required by Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour i
nspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only when the aircraft is carrying a
person for hire, or when a person is providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.
If there are any questions, please advise us.

Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph T. Brennan
Associate Regional Counsel

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message ...
Once again Ron shows the world he has nothing better to do with his
time than to spend it breaking other user's balls.

I am not trrying to "break anybody's balls" (except maybe this guy's A&P instructor).
I am just trying to stem the blatant misinformation provided.

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections. Now go onto the net
and see if you can find which insurance carrier this FBO has and then
see if you can find a 19 year old memo stating that it is absolutely,
positively not a requirement!

Insurance requirements were never an assertion. The assertion was that
the regulations required it. Such was how it was expressed to AOPA.
Such is how "Chuck"'s A&P instructor instilled it on him.

And since the guy can't get the plane,

The guy can get the plane. The FBO is perfoectly willing to rent it to him over
the 100 hour limit (and legally to).

this is a mute point.

Since you've chosen to bust my balls, I'll point out the word you want
above is "moot" not "mute".

Here's some choices for you, Ron.

Here's some choices for you. Contribute something useful to the
conversation or shut the **** up.

Stu Gotts wrote:

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections.

And you're claiming that AOPA knows about this? Go to Hell, asshole.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Stu Gotts wrote in message . ..
Once again Ron shows the world he has nothing better to do with his
time than to spend it breaking other user's balls.

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections. Now go onto the net
and see if you can find which insurance carrier this FBO has and then
see if you can find a 19 year old memo stating that it is absolutely,
positively not a requirement!

And since the guy can't get the plane, this is a mute point. Best
thing to do is to take his business elsewhere, since this particular
FBO doesn't need the money.

Here's some choices for you, Ron. Either get a real life, go to
school to get your JD, or get your own TV show where you can be the
head law partner!



Throw me a bone, this is a troll, right?

I must be missing something...the plane is either owned by or leased back by
the FBO, right? Is there something in the regulations that requires the FBO
to accede to your request against what it perceives to be its own interests?
Can't find that in my copy of the regs. I always thought that the person
renting something to the public had some leverage.

Bob Gardner

"FryGuy" wrote in message
1...
I have a question around a 100 hour inspection requirement. I've had time
blocked off at my local FBO for over a month to take a plane this
Saturday.
Me and another pilot buddy are taking up the coast of North Carolina and
are going to hit the airports in the Outer Banks and go to the museum in
Kill Devil Hills.

I was just told that the aircraft we are renting is over the 100 hour
inspection requirement. I asked them if they could get it done between
now
and then and they said they don't have time. Their argument is that we
won't be doing any flight training and therefore the 100 hour inspection
requirement is not applicable.

I talked with someone at the AOPA and 91.409b says:
"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 preceeding 100 hours of time in service
the aircraft has received and annual or 100 hour inspection....."

The rep at the AOPA said that their interpretation is that since it is a
rental plane it is "for hire". I talked with the head A&P Mechanic at the
FBO and he said "for hire" only means if their are paying passengers.

I know this plane well and I know it is a good plane. I just don't want
to
violate any FARs. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Jeff Frey
PP-ASEL

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:32:12 GMT, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

I must be missing something...the plane is either owned by or leased back by
the FBO, right? Is there something in the regulations that requires the FBO
to accede to your request against what it perceives to be its own interests?
Can't find that in my copy of the regs. I always thought that the person
renting something to the public had some leverage.

Bob,

If I'm reading the port correctly, it's the opposite. The FBI =is=
willing to rent Jeff the airplane. It's Jeff that's worried about
renting it outside the 100 hour parameters.

Jeff, unless the 100 hour inspection coincides with some other
required work, take the airplane. As a number of others mentioned,
91.409 says

==============================
(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,
==============================

Consistent with the FAA's increase in safety rules when people are
paying their way, the 100 hour inspection requirement applies when
either (1) the aircraft is being used for flight instruction or (2)
the aircraft is carrying passengers who are paying for the flight.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

Black aeroplanes?

"Mark Kolber" wrote in message
...
The FBI =is= willing to rent Jeff the airplane.