If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mandatory 100hr checks - when? Also Dry Lease
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Sample contract for a Dry Lease ? | Dave Butler | General Aviation | 4 | May 23rd 04 02:15 PM |
Sample contract for a Dry Lease ? | Jim Burns | Piloting | 2 | May 23rd 04 02:15 PM |
Sample contract for a Dry Lease ? | Dave Butler | Piloting | 0 | May 20th 04 06:36 PM |
Rules on what can be in a hangar | Brett Justus | Owning | 13 | February 27th 04 05:35 PM |