"Peter" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote

And there is the rub, I would bet dollars to donuts that the insurance
company demands 100 hours whether you do instruction or not.

It doesn't.


They know you are renting out the plane?

Furthermore,
it is rather impractical NOT to offer instruction. Otherwise, how will
you
ensure the capabilities of the US airmen that want to rent?

In this particular case, they already need to be legal to fly the
type. This is achieved by them already having had what is called over
here a "complex checkout" (on some other aircraft, with an
instructor). This bit IS required by my insurance.

over here a "complex checkout" is not necessarily in the same model. It
sounds like you are saying they already have experience in the same model.

Still, I wonder. I unless you are talking about something really simple, or
know the instructor that did the sign off, are you really going to believe
the log book?


No formal "instruction" is required after that; I would come along as
a passenger, with the pilot as PIC.

This has red flags all over it. I would be worried over here that they
would try to claim that you are either doing virtual instruction or virtual
charter.



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.

If it's not in the FARs then where is it?

The more general question is this: surely the requirement for a 100hr
check (in the circumstances where is IS needed e.g. when using the
aircraft for training) exists only between the 100hr point and the
next annual. Let's say the aircraft has done 70 hours since its
annual, then for the next 30 it can be used for training. After that
it can't - until the next annual. This particular plane does about
150hrs/year, so it is only in the last 1/3 of that that it could not
be used for training.


This is a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that at such low hours you
may easily avoid any scrutiny. The curse is that you are making so little
money that it may not be worth the risks. If I were your insurer, and you
got in an accident with a renter as PIC, and you in the plane, my first
impulse would be to not pay because you are instructing or chartering. You
may likely prevail, but at an expense.





Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.