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