100 Hour Inspection Question
FryGuy
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
Tarver Engineering
"FryGuy" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942B9081918E8s...@24.25.9.41...
> 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.
AOPA is correct in that the airplane is for hire, but that is not the
subject of the CFR 14 section. For hire, the operator would get paid for
the flight and that would include any compensation from any
passenger/student.
> 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.
How is the flight being paid for?
Ben Smith
in the rental signup sheets. (Usually for about a week, whenever they could
fit them into the maintenance schedule).. So I think your agrument is
valid. However, they may have an insurance related issue with renting
planes over the 100 hour inspection time.
--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y
Bill Zaleski
You do not need the inspection for the trip. Only if a flight
instructor, associated with the FBO who operates the bird is aboard
giving flight instruction is it required. You could even use a CFI
from outside the FBO and legally train without the inspection. You
are not operating this for hire. The fact that the FBO rents to you
does not alter the way you are operating the flight.
Bill A&P I.A.
Tarver Engineering
"Bill Zaleski" <w...@instrumentratings.com> wrote in message
news:o88lqvga8juubhbpd...@4ax.com...
> Irrelevant question Tarver.
My question goes directly to wether the flight is a CFR 14 violation.
> You do not need the inspection for the trip. Only if a flight
> instructor, associated with the FBO who operates the bird is aboard
> giving flight instruction is it required. You could even use a CFI
> from outside the FBO and legally train without the inspection. You
> are not operating this for hire. The fact that the FBO rents to you
> does not alter the way you are operating the flight.
If his friend pays for half the gas and only fryguy flies, he got compensted
for his pilot activity. That is where the line is and I believe that is
what the question is about.
Please cease your top posting.
FryGuy
>
>> You do not need the inspection for the trip. Only if a flight
>> instructor, associated with the FBO who operates the bird is aboard
>> giving flight instruction is it required. You could even use a CFI
>> from outside the FBO and legally train without the inspection. You
>> are not operating this for hire. The fact that the FBO rents to you
>> does not alter the way you are operating the flight.
>
> If his friend pays for half the gas and only fryguy flies, he got
> compensted for his pilot activity. That is where the line is and I
> believe that is what the question is about.
>
We will both be flying. The other pilot will be flying up there and I'll
be flying the return trip. We will be splitting the costs though.
Jim
less than a month ago.
He called when a plane he had reserved was due for it's 100hr. This was a
current private pilot on a non-training and personal flight. I looked up
the FAR and showed the lineman and advised that in my opinion no 100 hour
was required for this flight but upon return any hours over 100 since the
last inspection would be counted against the following inspection. The
lineman called AOPA and they told him that if no flight instruction was
taking place and if the flight was a not for hire flight, no 100 hour was
needed. The person operating the aircraft (him) was not operating the
aircraft for hire, it was a personal part 91 flight. The lineman then asked
the local DE who runs his own FBO, plane rental, and maintenance shop. The
DE also agrees that as long as it's not a for hire flight, including flight
training, no 100 hour is required.
The FBO does however have the right to stick to it's 100hr policy whether
required or not. Slightly off the subject but interesting is that part of
the FAR that requires 100 hour inspections for airplanes supplied by the
instructor. I've heard arguments in the past that after a pilot meets the
rental requirements of the FBO that the instructor is no longer the supplier
of the airplane and no 100 hour is required.
Another interesting finer point of the FARs to debate. What says the group?
--
Jim Burns III
jbu...@nospamuniontel.net
Remove "nospam" to reply
"FryGuy" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942B9081918E8s...@24.25.9.41...
Ron Natalie
"FryGuy" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:Xns942B9081918E8s...@24.25.9.41...
> 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.
They are correct, if they aren't carrying passengers for hire, or providing
instruction, they don't need the 100 hour.
> The rep at the AOPA said that their interpretation is that since it is a
> rental plane it is "for hire".
Who ever told you that is an idiot. The reg says "CARRYING PASSENGERS
FOR HIRE." You're A&P is right. Rental is not operating for hire. You don't
need 100 hours, you don't need lifeboats or flares, etc...
Tarver Engineering
I think you are safe. Of course, you were probaly safe before, unless you
turned yourself in. :)
Jim Weir
has it dead nuts on.
Jim
FryGuy <som...@somewhere.net>
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->
->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.
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com j...@rst-engr.com
G.R. Patterson III
FryGuy wrote:
>
> I talked with the head A&P Mechanic at the
> FBO and he said "for hire" only means if their are paying passengers.
He's correct. The reg states "carrying any person for hire", and that's what it
means.
George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.
Chuck
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FAAB459...@comcast.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.
For what it's worth...
Ron Natalie
"Chuck" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message news:U8Aqb.13836$9M3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.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
Bob Gardner
the FBO, right? Is there something in the regulations that requires the FBO
to accede to your request against what it perceives to be its own interests?
Can't find that in my copy of the regs. I always thought that the person
renting something to the public had some leverage.
Bob Gardner
"FryGuy" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942B9081918E8s...@24.25.9.41...
Stu Gotts
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" <r...@sensor.com>
wrote:
Ron Natalie
"Stu Gotts" <Xs...@americanwop.com> wrote in message news:dbmlqv01qggj536rb...@4ax.com...
> 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 fuck up.
G.R. Patterson III
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.
Mark Kolber
wrote:
>I must be missing something...the plane is either owned by or leased back by
>the FBO, right? Is there something in the regulations that requires the FBO
>to accede to your request against what it perceives to be its own interests?
>Can't find that in my copy of the regs. I always thought that the person
>renting something to the public had some leverage.
Bob,
If I'm reading the port correctly, it's the opposite. The FBI =is=
willing to rent Jeff the airplane. It's Jeff that's worried about
renting it outside the 100 hour parameters.
Jeff, unless the 100 hour inspection coincides with some other
required work, take the airplane. As a number of others mentioned,
91.409 says
==============================
(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,
==============================
Consistent with the FAA's increase in safety rules when people are
paying their way, the 100 hour inspection requirement applies when
either (1) the aircraft is being used for flight instruction or (2)
the aircraft is carrying passengers who are paying for the flight.
Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
Pixel Dent
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> 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.
Peter Duniho
news:3faae1e9$0$75731$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> > Here's some choices for you, Ron.
>
> Here's some choices for you. Contribute something useful to the
> conversation or shut the fuck up.
Heh...took the words right out of my mouth. "Moot" and all.
Stu Gotts
Good, another mindless fan of fine entertainment.
>
Stu Gotts
wrote:
>
>"Stu Gotts" <Xs...@americanwop.com> wrote in message news:dbmlqv01qggj536rb...@4ax.com...
>> 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 fuck up.
Exactly what I'm trying to say to you. Keep being an ass hole, boy.
It really is entertaining!
Stu Gotts
You missed it, George. Re-read it.
Stu Gotts
Verbs Under My Gel
> 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?
Newps
And this is where some putz usually proudly announces somebody got
plonked. Wait for it...
Jim Weir
What rock did this jerknose crawl out from under?
Jim
Stu Gotts <Xs...@americanwop.com>
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->
->Then why all the fuss?
Paul Sengupta
"Mark Kolber" <midlife_fl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j0slqvku9ra2c5tne...@4ax.com...
Stu Gotts
state would have seen how full of shit 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.
Stu Gotts
On No! Please don't plonk ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stu Gotts
wrote:
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.
Stu Gotts
wrote:
>In article <3FAAE781...@comcast.net>,
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.
Jay Honeck
> 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"
Peter Duniho
> 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
news:vqnq4v4...@corp.supernews.com...
Self-loathing is terrible too. Either way, get some help.
Tarver Engineering
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> 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? :)
gross_arrow
> 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
Tarver Engineering
"gross_arrow" <gross...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb365b61.03110...@posting.google.com...
Excellent tactic.
Jay Somerset
> Ah, the governor wannabe speaks. You should have won, then the whole
> state would have seen how full of shit 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!
Jeff
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
Jeff
it was over 100 hours. Renters are hell on an airplane.
Ron Rosenfeld
> If your renting it, then it must have a current 100 hr inspection.
I do not believe that to be the case, unless you are also carrying persons
for hire.
The fact that you are renting the airplane is NOT the same as "carrying a
person for hire".
I suspect your lessor's policy was based on something other than the FAR's.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Ron Natalie
"Jeff" <je...@vcomm.net> wrote in message news:3FAF582A...@vcomm.net...
> 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.
Who says? We certainly had FBO/Club employees ferrying aircraft that were
out of 100 hour.
> If your renting it, then it must have a current 100 hr inspection.
No, only if the instructor is provided with it or you're carrying passengers for hire.
I have posted both the regulation AND the FAA legal interpreation of the reg on
this thread. There's no requirement for
> Its not your airplane,
How did it cease to be my airplane. The FAA still thinks I'm the owner.
> so its a plane for hire.
Yes, but immaterial. The 100 hour rule doesn't care about that.
> The operator (the flight school) is responsible for ensuring the maint. on the plane.
The flight school is not the operator by the FAA terminology.
> 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.
Quite true and frequently overlooked by renters.
Stu Gotts
James M. Knox
> 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.
You can certainly set up any more restrictive rules you wish, including
limiting flight of the aircraft to only you if it is over 100 hours on the
inspection. However, I think if you will check further, you will find that
you are incorrect as for USA rules by the FAA.
The plane can not be used for hire, meaning air charter, flight instruction
offered by the provider of the aircraft, etc. But it most certainly can be
rented to a pilot for his own private (personal or business) part 91
flight.
-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721 jk...@trisoft.com
-----------------------------------------------
Pat Barry
I'm afraid you are mistaken.
Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself, and an aircraft
cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire beyond the currency of
the 100 hours inspection. An application can be given to the FAA whereby the
FAA can extend this by ten hours - but that is the only break there is.
I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection that it
cannot be rented out.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself
True
>and an aircraft
>cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire beyond the currency of
>the 100 hours inspection.
That is NOT what the relevant FAR states
> An application can be given to the FAA whereby the
>FAA can extend this by ten hours - but that is the only break there is.
>
>I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection that it
>cannot be rented out.
I can assure you that your opinion does not agree with that of most FSDO's.
Which FSDO supports your thesis?
Stu Gotts
>Dear Mr. Knox:
>
>I'm afraid you are mistaken.
>
>Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself, and an aircraft
>cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire beyond the currency of
>the 100 hours inspection. An application can be given to the FAA whereby the
>FAA can extend this by ten hours - but that is the only break there is.
>
>I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection that it
>cannot be rented out.
>
>
That statement is certain to piss some of the natives off. I'm sure
the "armchair lawyers" of the group (they know who they are) will
start listing and quoting their sacred "FARS" along with their own
interpretation of such, in anticipation of being elevated to the
position of "Armchair Chief Justice".
Tarver Engineering
"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronros...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:gsoervk9eegsq9lha...@4ax.com...
None for long, if Pat posts their name here. :)
It must have been some sort of misunderstanding ...
James M. Knox
> Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation and
will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate (although not
have to pay state tax in most states).
> aircraft cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire
> beyond the currency of the 100 hours inspection.
But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
> I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection
> that it cannot be rented out.
I hate to quote FSDO web sites, because they are frequently in error.
But from, for instance, the Albany FSDO website:
"Aircraft rental by itself isn't "for hire," and applicants bring the
airplane to me for the test. However, the aircraft may have a recurring
AD that requires compliance every 100 hours, so although the 100-hour
inspection may be unnecessary, AD compliance may be."
More officially, here's an FAA Chief Counsel letter interp:
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 inspection. 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
> I'm afraid you are mistaken.
Wouldn't be the first time... but not in this case.
jmk
Tarver Engineering
"James M. Knox" <jk...@trisoft.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943586DB5B1C...@10.0.0.1...
> Pat Barry <p...@ktb.com> wrote in news:3FB72CC9...@ktb.com:
>
> > Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
>
> It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation and
> will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate (although not
> have to pay state tax in most states).
>
> > aircraft cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire
> > beyond the currency of the 100 hours inspection.
>
> But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
> instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
> otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.
James M. Knox
s...@sti.net:
>> But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
>> instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
>> otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
>
> Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.
Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?
Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
RENTER. Be very careful when you simply see a sentence about use of the
aircraft "for hire or compenation, including flight instruction." If you
look more carefully you will see that they are talking about the FBO
providing both the plane and flight instructor. That indeed DOES require a
100 hour inspection.
Ron Natalie
"Pat Barry" <p...@ktb.com> wrote in message news:3FB72CC9...@ktb.com...
> Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
Renting out an aircraft (without a pilot) isn't any kind of operation as far as the FAA
is concerned.
> and an aircraft
> cannot be used in any operation for compensation or hire beyond the currency of
> the 100 hours inspection. An application can be given to the FAA whereby the
> FAA can extend this by ten hours - but that is the only break there is.
>
> I can assure you that when a plane is out of a hundred hour inspection that it
> cannot be rented out.
And I can assure you, you are completely wrong. The rule says "carrying passengers
for hire." Rental is not carrying passengers for hire. The FAA has issued an official
ruling on this. I will repost it here as people insist on repeating this bogosity:
May 3, 1984
In Reply Refer To: ACE-7
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service
PO Box 330
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
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
Ron Natalie
>
> > Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
>
> It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation and
> will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate (although not
> have to pay state tax in most states).
It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating involves
providing an aircraft and a pilot.
Ron Natalie
"James M. Knox" <jk...@trisoft.com> wrote in message news:Xns94365642E490...@10.0.0.1...
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in news:5YCdnQMkPtw0dyqiRVn-
> s...@sti.net:
>
> >> But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
> >> instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
> >> otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
> >
> > Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.
>
> Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?
>
> Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
> RENTER.
You've changed what you are talking about. Your original assertion was
that any rental was covered by 100 hour. The legal interps posted here
cover that.
Now if you want to talk about the "flight instructor providing the aircraft"
versus "flight instructor provided by the renter" there's another legal interp.
We refer to your letter dated January 28, 1975, which requests our interpretation of FAR 91.169(b) as that regulation might apply
to your flying club.
You state that the Georgia Lockheed Employees Recreation Club, Inc. (GLERC) is a nonprofit organization which owns five Cessna
airplanes. These airplanes are operated by members of GLERC Flying Club, Inc. It is not clear whether Georgia Lockheed Employees
Recreation Club, Inc. is the same organization as GLERC Flying Club, Inc. If these two corporations are in fact different, I assume
that the Recreation Club permits the Flying Club to utilize the airplanes by lease or other similar arrangement.
You pose the following question:
If a student furnishes an airplane which is not operated for hire to be used for his own flight instruction and he then pays a
flight instructor for instruction, must the airplane have received a 100 hour inspection within the previous 100 hours in order to
comply with FAR 91.169(b)?
For the purposes of our reply, we assume that the "student" referred to above is a member of GLERC Flying Club, Inc. and the
airplane furnished is one of the Cessnas operated by the Flying Club.
{p19}
Section 91.169(b) pertinently provides:
... [1] no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and [2] 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 it
has received ... 100-hour inspection ... (Numbers and brackets added.)
In the first instance, the student is not carrying anyone for hire. Moreover, the flight instructor is a crewmember. Thus, there
is no requirement for the airplane to have a 100-hour inspection.
In the second instance, the flight instructor is not providing his own airplane, the airplane being furnished by the student.
Thus, this part of Section 91.169(b) does not appear to be applicable.
In view of the above, it is our opinion that FAR 91.169(b) does not apply to the factual situation presented.
Very truly yours,
R.R. HAGADONE
Attorney
Office of the Regional Counsel
Tarver Engineering
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in news:5YCdnQMkPtw0dyqiRVn-
> s...@sti.net:
>
> >> But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
> >> instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
> >> otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
> >
> > Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.
>
> Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?
"No pilot shall operate ..."
> Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
> RENTER. Be very careful when you simply see a sentence about use of the
> aircraft "for hire or compenation, including flight instruction." If you
> look more carefully you will see that they are talking about the FBO
> providing both the plane and flight instructor. That indeed DOES require
a
> 100 hour inspection.
Nope.
Tarver Engineering
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3fb8e97b$0$25238$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "James M. Knox" <jk...@trisoft.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94365642E490...@10.0.0.1...
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in
news:5YCdnQMkPtw0dyqiRVn-
> > s...@sti.net:
> >
> > >> But it can be flown by the renter, or his pilot (including a flight
> > >> instructor *the renter provides*, as long as it is in annual and
> > >> otherwise airworthy. No 100 hour inspection is required.
> > >
> > > Nope, go read your own FAA opinion again.
> >
> > Okay... been there, done that. Care to try to be more specific?
> >
> > Note that I specifically referred to a flight instructor PROVIDED BY THE
> > RENTER.
>
> You've changed what you are talking about. Your original assertion was
> that any rental was covered by 100 hour. The legal interps posted here
> cover that.
The airplane did not get safer by changing the transaction and Hagadone's
interpretation seems to have missed the point of the law.
James M. Knox
>> > Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
>>
>> It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation
>> and will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate
>> (although not have to pay state tax in most states).
>
> It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating
> involves providing an aircraft and a pilot.
We are in complete agreement, as far as I can tell. Renting an aircraft is
a commercial operation -- just the same as renting a fishing boat or
renting a pair of skis. It's subject to state and federal laws concerning
operating a business, including the collecting and payment of applicable
taxes, plus required permits.
But, as you say, the FAA has no special regulations for this. It's NOT
what they are talking about when they refer to a "commercial operation."
Tarver Engineering
> "Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in
> news:3fb8e8d8$0$25320$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
>
> >> > Renting out an aircraft is a commercial operation in itself,
> >>
> >> It's renting of a piece of property. It is a commercial operation
> >> and will require the renter to hold a state sales certificate
> >> (although not have to pay state tax in most states).
> >
> > It is not an "operation" as far as the FAA is concern. Operating
> > involves providing an aircraft and a pilot.
>
> We are in complete agreement, as far as I can tell. Renting an aircraft
is
> a commercial operation -- just the same as renting a fishing boat or
> renting a pair of skis. It's subject to state and federal laws concerning
> operating a business, including the collecting and payment of applicable
> taxes, plus required permits.
>
> But, as you say, the FAA has no special regulations for this. It's NOT
> what they are talking about when they refer to a "commercial operation."
If the inspection is important as health and safety law, all that FAA has
done with the opinion Ron posted is allow any club to forever put off the
100 hour inspection; by merely having the members provide their own
instructor. If the law is not important as health and safety law, then the
opinion acts in restraint of trade, by preventing the school from providing
an instructor.