100 Hour Inspection Question

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:04:20 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"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.

Your Honor;
Looks to me like a difference of opinions here, and as usual yours is
the only one you think is valid

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.

How do you know? Were you actually there making sure all the
regulations were quoted as written? Maybe you can also tell us what
was in the "framer's" minds when they wrote them.

And since the guy can't get the plane,

Really?

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.

In your case, I actually meant to say "mute". Too bad your heads so
far up your ass that you weren't able to catch on.

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.

Exactly what I'm trying to say to you. Keep being an ass hole, boy.
It really is entertaining!