100 Hour Inspection Question

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 03:45:10 GMT, Newps wrote:



Verbs Under My Gel 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.

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!




Throw me a bone, this is a troll, right?



And this is where some putz usually proudly announces somebody got
plonked. Wait for it...

On No! Please don't plonk ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Okay, I got it now, you're right. My impression was that they weren't
going to let it fly until after the inspection. I'm sure many others
interpreted it that way too.

I think you are safe. Of course, you were probaly safe before, unless you
turned yourself in.

And for only fifty bucks, none of us will report ya! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
Although I do have my fun on the use net, I'm no troll, just sick and
tired of the few, the proud, the ball breakers that don't have the
talent to criticize constructively or correct creatively.

Self-loating is a terrible thing. Get some help.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
Although I do have my fun on the use net, I'm no troll, just sick and
tired of the few, the proud, the ball breakers that don't have the
talent to criticize constructively or correct creatively.

Self-loating is a terrible thing. Get some help.

Self-loathing is terrible too. Either way, get some help.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:4LRqb.138212$HS4.1088008@attbi_s01...
I think you are safe. Of course, you were probaly safe before, unless
you
turned yourself in.

And for only fifty bucks, none of us will report ya! :-)

How did a MIDO inspector get in this conversation?

Stu Gotts wrote in message

Although I do have my fun on the use net, I'm no troll, just sick and
tired of the few, the proud, the ball breakers that don't have the
talent to criticize constructively or correct creatively.


oh, like your shining example of "constructive, creative" criticism?
who appointed you the net nazi anyway? (there, i did it ... i lose...
thread over, according to godwin's law).

g_a

"gross_arrow" wrote in message
om...
Stu Gotts wrote in message

Although I do have my fun on the use net, I'm no troll, just sick and
tired of the few, the proud, the ball breakers that don't have the
talent to criticize constructively or correct creatively.


oh, like your shining example of "constructive, creative" criticism?
who appointed you the net nazi anyway? (there, i did it ... i lose...
thread over, according to godwin's law).

Excellent tactic.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:01:41 -0600, Stu Gotts wrote:

Ah, the governor wannabe speaks. You should have won, then the whole
state would have seen how full of **** you really are!

Sorry boys, I stand by my original post. Chuck simply just graduated
school and related what he was instructed for those 18 to 30 or so
months. The ball breaker starts his tirade immediately by saying they
drilled him with misinformation, then goes on to quote FAR's like they
were a sound bite at some low class news station and comes up with
some memo from 1984. To me the majority of Natalie's posts are mostly
consisted of proving others that their opinions mean nothing and he IS
the authority. Now MY opinion (yea, I know what the dickheads are
going to post as a reply) is that this amateur ball breaker is a
spoiled brat that probably wasn't allowed to say anything while his
daddy spanked him.

Ah, I think what was proved was that Ron can read (and understand) the FARs,
and you cannot!



On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:41:03 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:


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

I used to use my cherokee 180 as a lease back, when it was over its 100 hours,
As the owner, I was the only one allowed to fly it.

If your renting it, then it must have a current 100 hr inspection. Its not
your airplane, so its a plane for hire. The operator (the flight school) is
responsible for ensuring the maint. on the plane. As the pilot, your
responsible for making sure its been completed before flying it. Its one of
those things to look for when you look through the log book to verify the
annual is up to date and so on.

FryGuy wrote:

I have a question around a 100 hour inspection requirement. I've had time
blocked off at my local FBO for over a month to take a plane this Saturday.
Me and another pilot buddy are taking up the coast of North Carolina and
are going to hit the airports in the Outer Banks and go to the museum in
Kill Devil Hills.

I was just told that the aircraft we are renting is over the 100 hour
inspection requirement. I asked them if they could get it done between now
and then and they said they don't have time. Their argument is that we
won't be doing any flight training and therefore the 100 hour inspection
requirement is not applicable.

I talked with someone at the AOPA and 91.409b says:
"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 preceeding 100 hours of time in service
the aircraft has received and annual or 100 hour inspection....."

The rep at the AOPA said that their interpretation is that since it is a
rental plane it is "for hire". I talked with the head A&P Mechanic at the
FBO and he said "for hire" only means if their are paying passengers.

I know this plane well and I know it is a good plane. I just don't want to
violate any FARs. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Jeff Frey
PP-ASEL