Mandatory 100hr checks - when? Also Dry Lease

It's always been believed that if an aircraft (US registered) is
rented out, a 100hr check is required.

People believe all sorts of things that aren't true, including this.

I am now trying to find a reference to this in the FARs.

You will be looking a long time.

The above text doesn't seem to apply to plain rental. It describes
carrying a person for hire (implying that the passenger is paying)
and
offering flight training in the said aircraft.

This is correct. Those are the situation that require a 100-hour.
Rental does not.

Michael

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.

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's always been believed that if an aircraft (US registered) is
rented out, a 100hr check is required.

People believe all sorts of things that aren't true, including this.

I am now trying to find a reference to this in the FARs.

You will be looking a long time.

The above text doesn't seem to apply to plain rental. It describes
carrying a person for hire (implying that the passenger is paying)
and
offering flight training in the said aircraft.

This is correct. Those are the situation that require a 100-hour.
Rental does not.

Michael

You have the correct FAR. If it is not required in the FAR, it is not
required. So for just rental, no instruction FOR HIRE (free instruction
OK), you do not need a 100 hour inspection.

Most planes that are rented are used for paid instruction, so most
rentals require 100 hours. Also there is the INSURANCE company, which
may REQUIRE it. So there may be other issues.

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

On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
wrote:


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

The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
complied with then they are not airworthy.

I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
sure the ADs are complied with.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:04:14 -0600, Scott D. wrote:

On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
wrote:


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

The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
complied with then they are not airworthy.

I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
sure the ADs are complied with.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

Not true. The seat AD is only due at 100 hours if the aircraft
requires a 100 inspection. If not, 12 months is the allowed interval,
regardless of hours flown.

Bill Zaleski A&P I.A.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:04:14 -0600, Scott D. wrote:

On 13 Apr 2005 13:52:43 -0700, "Michael"
wrote:


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

The only other thing that you have to watch out for is the 100 Hour
AD's that the 172's have on them such as the seat rails. So if they
are renting out the plane without having atleast those 100 hour AD's
complied with then they are not airworthy.

I do know of one FBO that has a fleet of aircraft just for training
and then they have a fleet of aircraft just for rental. The rental
doesnt have to go thru the 100 hour inspection, they just have to make
sure the ADs are complied with.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

Not true. The seat AD is only due at 100 hours if the aircraft
requires a 100 inspection. If not, 12 months is the allowed interval,
regardless of hours flown.

Bill Zaleski A&P I.A.


And if the rails are replaced the AD starts after 1,000 hours TIS.

It don't matter to me, but I wouldn't try it around my FSDO.

They live to spread FUD, and enforce it.

Now, if you are overseas, I have NO IDEA what level of enforcement and
liability you have.

My fear, without uncertainty or doubt, would be that the plaintiff would
claim that it is normal for rental planes to have 100 hour inspections. So
the fact that the rental pilot flew into the ground in a thunderstorm is
most likely due to the lack of an inspection. The question is whether they
can drag you back to a US court.




"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

was in contravention of any rules, no matter where they come from.

As you suggest, the change of prosecution is tiny. The lack of an
insurance payout after say a gear up landing is going to be far more
painful.



And there is the rub, I would bet dollars to donuts that the insurance
company demands 100 hours whether you do instruction or not. Furthermore,
it is rather impractical NOT to offer instruction. Otherwise, how will you
ensure the capabilities of the US airmen that want to rent?

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.

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.