"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.