A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

100 Hour Inspection Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 16th 03, 09:22 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
Pat Barry wrote in :

Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,


It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation and
will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate (although not
have to pay state tax in most states).

aircraft cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire
beyond the currency of the 100 hours inspection.


But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.


Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.

I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection
that it cannot be rented out.


I hate to quote FSDO web sites, because they are frequently in error.
But from, for instance, the Albany FSDO website:

"Aircraft rental by itself isn't "for hire," and applicants bring the
airplane to me for the test. However, the aircraft may have a recurring
AD that requires compliance every 100 hours, so although the 100-hour
inspection may be unnecessary, AD compliance may be."

More officially, here's an FAA Chief Counsel letter interp:

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 inspection. 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

I'm afraid you are mistaken.


Wouldn't be the first time... but not in this case.

jmk



Ads
  #53  
Old November 17th 03, 03:07 PM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim:

Tarver has no clue. You are correct. He just like to dance around
the obvious.

Bill A&P IA



On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:28:17 -0600, "James M. Knox"
wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in news:5YCdnQMkPtw0dyqiRVn-
:

But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.


Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.


Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?

Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
RENTER. Be very careful when you simply see a sentence about use of the
aircraft "for hire or compenation, including flight instruction." If you
look more carefully you will see that they are talking about the FBO
providing both the plane and flight instructor. That indeed DOES require a
100 hour inspection.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------


  #54  
Old November 17th 03, 03:26 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pat Barry" wrote in message ...

Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,


Renting out an aircraft (without a pilot) isn't any kind of operation as far as the FAA
is concerned.

and an aircraft
cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire beyond the currency of
the 100 hours inspection. An application can be given to the FAA whereby the
FAA can extend this by ten hours - but that is the only break there is.

I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection that it
cannot be rented out.


And I can assure you, you are completely wrong. The rule says "carrying passengers
for hire." Rental is not carrying passengers for hire. The FAA has issued an official
ruling on this. I will repost it here as people insist on repeating this bogosity:

May 3, 1984
In Reply Refer To: ACE-7

Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service
PO Box 330
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

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 inspection. 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



  #55  
Old November 17th 03, 03:27 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message ...
Pat Barry wrote in :

Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,


It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation and
will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate (although not
have to pay state tax in most states).


It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating involves
providing an aircraft and a pilot.



  #56  
Old November 17th 03, 03:30 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message ...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in news:5YCdnQMkPtw0dyqiRVn-
:

But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.


Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.


Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?

Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
RENTER.


You've changed what you are talking about. Your original assertion was
that any rental was covered by 100 hour. The legal interps posted here
cover that.

Now if you want to talk about the "flight instructor providing the aircraft"
versus "flight instructor provided by the renter" there's another legal interp.


We refer to your letter dated January 28, 1975, which requests our interpretation of FAR 91.169(b) as that regulation might apply
to your flying club.
You state that the Georgia Lockheed Employees Recreation Club, Inc. (GLERC) is a nonprofit organization which owns five Cessna
airplanes. These airplanes are operated by members of GLERC Flying Club, Inc. It is not clear whether Georgia Lockheed Employees
Recreation Club, Inc. is the same organization as GLERC Flying Club, Inc. If these two corporations are in fact different, I assume
that the Recreation Club permits the Flying Club to utilize the airplanes by lease or other similar arrangement.
You pose the following question:
If a student furnishes an airplane which is not operated for hire to be used for his own flight instruction and he then pays a
flight instructor for instruction, must the airplane have received a 100 hour inspection within the previous 100 hours in order to
comply with FAR 91.169(b)?
For the purposes of our reply, we assume that the "student" referred to above is a member of GLERC Flying Club, Inc. and the
airplane furnished is one of the Cessnas operated by the Flying Club.

{p19}

Section 91.169(b) pertinently provides:
... [1] no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and [2] 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 it
has received ... 100-hour inspection ... (Numbers and brackets added.)
In the first instance, the student is not carrying anyone for hire. Moreover, the flight instructor is a crewmember. Thus, there
is no requirement for the airplane to have a 100-hour inspection.
In the second instance, the flight instructor is not providing his own airplane, the airplane being furnished by the student.
Thus, this part of Section 91.169(b) does not appear to be applicable.
In view of the above, it is our opinion that FAR 91.169(b) does not apply to the factual situation presented.

Very truly yours,
R.R. HAGADONE
Attorney
Office of the Regional Counsel



  #59  
Old November 18th 03, 02:33 PM
James M. Knox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Natalie" wrote in
m:

Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,


It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation
and will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate
(although not have to pay state tax in most states).


It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating
involves providing an aircraft and a pilot.


We are in complete agreement, as far as I can tell. Renting an aircraft is
a commercial operation -- just the same as renting a fishing boat or
renting a pair of skis. It's subject to state and federal laws concerning
operating a business, including the collecting and payment of applicable
taxes, plus required permits.

But, as you say, the FAA has no special regulations for this. It's NOT
what they are talking about when they refer to a "commercial operation."


-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------
  #60  
Old November 19th 03, 04:01 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in
m:

Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,

It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation
and will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate
(although not have to pay state tax in most states).


It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating
involves providing an aircraft and a pilot.


We are in complete agreement, as far as I can tell. Renting an aircraft

is
a commercial operation -- just the same as renting a fishing boat or
renting a pair of skis. It's subject to state and federal laws concerning
operating a business, including the collecting and payment of applicable
taxes, plus required permits.

But, as you say, the FAA has no special regulations for this. It's NOT
what they are talking about when they refer to a "commercial operation."


If the inspection is important as health and safety law, all that FAA has
done with the opinion Ron posted is allow any club to forever put off the
100 hour inspection; by merely having the members provide their own
instructor. If the law is not important as health and safety law, then the
opinion acts in restraint of trade, by preventing the school from providing
an instructor.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Home Inspection Listings Patrick Glenn Home Built 4 April 26th 04 11:52 AM
51st Fighter Wing betters rating to ‘excellent’ with inspection Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 February 20th 04 11:29 PM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.