Mandatory 100hr checks - when? Also Dry Lease

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:TpG7e.14515$Xm3.12063@trndny01...
Dude wrote:
It don't matter to me, but I wouldn't try it around my FSDO.

So, just respond with more FUD.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

This is a perfectly appropriate place for FUD. Failure to dot the i's and
cross the t's can get ugly. I have recently lost a couple battles with
regulatory and legal types, so maybe I am overcautious at the moment.

"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.

"Peter" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote

They know you are renting out the plane?

Of course. One has to make a full disclosure to the insurer; under UK
insurance law they can walk away from any claim otherwise.


Believe it or not, I have had this conversation before with people who had a
different answer. In the US, though.

over here a "complex checkout" is not necessarily in the same model.

Same here.

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?

That's a good point. Take the case of a flying club, or any group
sharing an aircraft. Let's say they take on board a new member. They
will want to check out that he can really fly. Are you saying that the
checkout flight must be done with an instructor?

That would be different. That's a club. You are doing a "dry lease" which
is really close to being a "dry rental".

Around here, there are several types of clubs, and ones that operate like
you do are generally doing 100 hour inspections to keep the Feds happy.
Clubs with very few members who are usually equity partners would get by
with this arrangement, but not non-equity clubs. My FSDO would be happy to
call that instruction without a CFI license.


That's not what
happens in reality, especially if the aircraft is something reasonably
advanced when few if any available instructors will be familiar with
it anyway.

That is not the point. When money is changing hands, the Feds get more
strict about what is "charter" and "instruction". The more it looks like
duck, the more it will be treated like a duck. And you are looking a lot
like a duck who is dodging the 100 hr. and CFI bullets with a "dry lease".

I don't think the checkout flight needs to be done with a
legal instructor IF the new member (or new renter if the group works
by renting to its members, as some do) is already technically legal to
be PIC in that aircraft.


I believe its a fine line, and I would want a memo from someone at the FAA
before I went forth and tried it.

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.

Please see above. I don't think they could claim that, since no
instruction is legally required.

Why would someone suggest that charter is taking place? The pilot
being checked out is paying for the flight; he's not a paying
passenger.

This is an area which I have discussed with my insurance broker and he
is free to check with the insurance company. Their lawyers are the
best there are. But they won't give an opinion; they just say "you
have to remain legal". Really useful!


Their lack of wanting to give an opinion could be overly defensive, or it
could be telling. I think they just don't really know what the FAA guy who
stumbles upon you will say. Also, they want to be able to hedge their bets
if you crash. At any rate, more than one flight school has been busted for
"134 and a half" charters. This is where a pilot or student pilot flies
with an instructor in order to get somewhere rather than to really have a
lesson.

So anyway, your guy is not even an instructor. I suppose you could do a
"demonstration flight" in order to sell the lease. This would only require
the checkout pilot to have 200 hours, but he is PIC for the entire flight.

If the plane is ever has to be flown back to your airport because it is left
elsewhere by a renter, then the pilot fetching it will need to be commercial
(unless it is the owner). However, if you send him along with the renter to
bring the plane back, then he had better not sit up front or you risk
getting nailed as a 134 and a half.

Bottom line from me to you is that this is not an area where I would ask
forgiveness rather than permission.




------------------
If you use Micro$oft Outlook, please do not add my email address
to your address book. Many viruses extract addresses from
Outlook address books. Thank you.