100 Hour Inspection Question

"Chuck" wrote in message link.net...


I just got out of A&P school earlier this year, so I am no expert by any
means, but one of the things that they drilled into our heads during FAR's
was that a plane for hire and/or flight lessons from a flight school, fall
under the 100 hour inspection.

Well they drilled misinformation into your head. Rental without instructor or pilot
does not fall under the 100 hour requirement. Here is the rule straight from 91.409:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an
aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and 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 the aircraft has received an annual
or 100-hour inspection

Note it says nothing about offering the aircraft for hire, it says CARRYING ANY PERSON
FOR HIRE. This means passengers on demand or for compensation.

Here is a clarifcation from the FAA Counsel that reaffirms the rules mean what the
say:

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 i
nspection. 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

Once again Ron shows the world he has nothing better to do with his
time than to spend it breaking other user's balls.

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!

And since the guy can't get the plane, this is a mute point. Best
thing to do is to take his business elsewhere, since this particular
FBO doesn't need the money.

Here's some choices for you, Ron. Either get a real life, go to
school to get your JD, or get your own TV show where you can be the
head law partner!


On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:53:11 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Chuck" wrote in message link.net...


I just got out of A&P school earlier this year, so I am no expert by any
means, but one of the things that they drilled into our heads during FAR's
was that a plane for hire and/or flight lessons from a flight school, fall
under the 100 hour inspection.

Well they drilled misinformation into your head. Rental without instructor or pilot
does not fall under the 100 hour requirement. Here is the rule straight from 91.409:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an
aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and 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 the aircraft has received an annual
or 100-hour inspection

Note it says nothing about offering the aircraft for hire, it says CARRYING ANY PERSON
FOR HIRE. This means passengers on demand or for compensation.

Here is a clarifcation from the FAA Counsel that reaffirms the rules mean what the
say:

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 i
nspection. 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

"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.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Here's some choices for you, Ron.

Here's some choices for you. Contribute something useful to the
conversation or shut the **** up.

Heh...took the words right out of my mouth. "Moot" and all.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:45:22 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
om...
Here's some choices for you, Ron.

Here's some choices for you. Contribute something useful to the
conversation or shut the **** up.

Heh...took the words right out of my mouth. "Moot" and all.

Good, another mindless fan of fine entertainment.

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!

Stu Gotts wrote:

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections.

And you're claiming that AOPA knows about this? Go to Hell, asshole.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Stu Gotts wrote:

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections.

And you're claiming that AOPA knows about this? Go to Hell, asshole.



Forget the AOPA, apparently the flight school doesn't know about their
own policy either. If Stu had bothered to read the initial post he'd
have seen that the flight school is the one that said it was OK for him
to rent the airplane from them.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:58:37 -0500, Pixel Dent
wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Stu Gotts wrote:

How about the company having a specific policy (possibly required by
the insurance carrier) regarding the inspections.

And you're claiming that AOPA knows about this? Go to Hell, asshole.



Forget the AOPA, apparently the flight school doesn't know about their
own policy either. If Stu had bothered to read the initial post he'd
have seen that the flight school is the one that said it was OK for him
to rent the airplane from them.

Then why all the fuss?

What rock did this jerknose crawl out from under?

Jim


Stu Gotts
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-Then why all the fuss?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com