Annual Inspection vs. 100-Hour Inspection

write-stuff

En-Route
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
4,603
Location
Atlanta
Display Name

Display name:
write-stuff
For you A&P/IAs out there:
My understanding is that an Annual counts as a 100-hour (but not the other way around). So, if an IA signs off an annual at a flight school, must the endorsement also refer to the inspection as a 100-hour too?
 
Last edited:
See 14 CFR 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 and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.”

The regulation specifically requires an annual inspection or a 100-hour inspection. If an IA is conducting the inspection, he or she is always going to sign it off as an annual inspection because it covers the bases for either an annual or a 100-hour. It’s not uncommon to see a busy flight school plane with an dozen annual inspections a year.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91#p-91.409(b)
 
For you A&P/IAs out there:
My understanding is that an Annual counts as a 100-hour (but not the other way around). So, if an IA signs off an annual at a flight school, must the endorsement also refer to the inspection as a 100-hour too?
No
 
For you A&P/IAs out there:
My understanding is that an Annual counts as a 100-hour (but not the other way around). So, if an IA signs off an annual at a flight school, must the endorsement also refer to the inspection as a 100-hour too?
Annual covers it. Some IA's write 100hr inspection in the engine log, Annual in the airframe log
 
For you A&P/IAs out there:
My understanding is that an Annual counts as a 100-hour (but not the other way around). So, if an IA signs off an annual at a flight school, must the endorsement also refer to the inspection as a 100-hour too?
No, but a lot of flight school IAs endorse the plane has completed an 100 hour and annual inspection.
 
We just did annuals every 100 hours when I was involved in the flight club management. All it takes is the an IA doing the job (a regular A&P can do a 100 hour). The reg says "annual or 100 hour." You don't need to EVER see 100 hour in the logs as long as you don't let 100 hours go between annuals.
 
And then there is that - to add confusion to the process.
Not really. The annual sign-off only applies to the aircraft. Thats the only entry that matters. For those owners who use separate engine and prop mx records the proper sign off for a purist is signing off 100 hour inspection. However, existing guidance leaves it up to the IA.
 
For you A&P/IAs out there:
My understanding is that an Annual counts as a 100-hour (but not the other way around). So, if an IA signs off an annual at a flight school, must the endorsement also refer to the inspection as a 100-hour too?
Have you ever owned a plane?
 
Not really. The annual sign-off only applies to the aircraft. Thats the only entry that matters. For those owners who use separate engine and prop mx records the proper sign off for a purist is signing off 100 hour inspection. However, existing guidance leaves it up to the IA.
FSDO grounded my plane during my CFI checkride because the propeller wasn't annualed. This was before the LOI that expressly stated it didn't need a separate endorsement. They were total jerks about it to--"you want to be a CFI, you should have known this." The best part is they changed their mind two hours later.
 
FSDO grounded my plane during my CFI checkride because the propeller wasn't annualed.
Never seen a fed screw that up. Unfortunately there still are a few IAs out there who think otherwise. Only the "aircraft" gets an annual which includes the prop and engine and is stated plainly in the rules. Thats about as basic as it gets and goes back to the CAA days.
 
FSDO grounded my plane during my CFI checkride because the propeller wasn't annualed. This was before the LOI that expressly stated it didn't need a separate endorsement. They were total jerks about it to--"you want to be a CFI, you should have known this." The best part is they changed their mind two hours later.
More importantly, did you earn your CFI cert 5 hours after the incident?
 
Not really. The annual sign-off only applies to the aircraft. Thats the only entry that matters. For those owners who use separate engine and prop mx records the proper sign off for a purist is signing off 100 hour inspection. However, existing guidance leaves it up to the IA.
Yes really. I had an DPE insist a 100 hour engine entry and an airframe annual entry was improper on my CFI ride. I had to argue this to the point of making him call the FSDO to settle it.
 
Yes really. I had an DPE insist a 100 hour engine entry and an airframe annual entry was improper on my CFI ride.
Lack of knowledge on the DPE is one thing especially since the FSDO enlightened him. You obviously werent confused. No different than some people believe all STCs are a major alteration and require a 337. Or do you consider that "confusion" as well?
 
Lack of knowledge on the DPE is one thing especially since the FSDO enlightened him. You obviously werent confused. No different than some people believe all STCs are a major alteration and require a 337. Or do you consider that "confusion" as well?

Most pilots have no idea what a 337 is, so no there no confusion .
 
Most pilots have no idea what a 337 is, so no there no confusion .

So when you are prepping someone for a check ride, you don't cover required documentation? And you don't teach how to read the aircraft logbooks and find required entries?
 
Yes really. I had an DPE insist a 100 hour engine entry and an airframe annual entry was improper on my CFI ride. I had to argue this to the point of making him call the FSDO to settle it.
When I was just an AP without the IA ticket, I maintained trainers for a flight school. For annuals a local IA would come to my maintenance hangar and inspect/discuss my work. His preference was to sign ANNUAL under my log entry in the aircraft logbook, and just leave my entry in the engine logbook as 100hr inspection. FAA(FSDO) inspectors were fine with that. I believe IA's and FSDO personnel have varying ways they interpret the rules
 
Has anybody ever been hassled by the FAA due to an improper maintenance log entry? Experimentals don't get "annuals" or 100 hour inspections; the operating limitations spell out the wording "I certify this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D....", or a "similarly worded statement", but I've seen entries saying 100 hour or annual in experimental logbooks. Is calling it an "annual" a "similarly worded statement"?
 
Most pilots have no idea what a 337 is, so no there no confusion .
Interesting. But that is nowhere near my experience with pilot/owners. You must hang around some unique pilots. But to clarify, are you saying "most" pilots are ignorant or that they are not taught properly?

Has anybody ever been hassled by the FAA due to an improper maintenance log entry?
Yes. Some had a certificate suspension involved with an improper mx record entry. Part 43.9 and 43.11 give guidance on mx entries similar to the one in your ops limits. But the "100/annual" references in an E/AB record are not correct and should have been corrected.
 
Anybody who tells you that it makes a difference which book you put the inspections in is full of it. THere's no requirement to have a separate engine and airframe log, it just makes things easier the two part company with each other. Hell, I even have separate prop logs.

100 hours and Annuals both apply to the the AIRCRAFT (to include whatever engine(s) that includes).\

As for EXPERIMENTAL just see 91.409(b) which is the paragraph that covers 100hours. It starts off with "Except as provided in paragraph (c)." Paragraph (c) says, "Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to an aircraft that carries a current experimental certificate."
 
yes, but only for 25 years.
Odd that, after 25 years as an airplane owner, and an experienced CFI that runs an online groundschool program, you didn't know that an annual counts as 100 hour inspection.
 
Odd that, after 25 years as an airplane owner, and an experienced CFI that runs an online groundschool program, you didn't know that an annual counts as 100 hour inspection.
Odd that you decided to get snarky without carefully reading my original post. I made it clear that I "know that an annual counts as 100 hour inspection". But, we see all types in these public forums.
 
Odd that you decided to get snarky without carefully reading my original post. I made it clear that I "know that an annual counts as 100 hour inspection". But, we see all types in these public forums.
I read the post very carefully.
 
Last edited:
I read the post very carefully.

Interesting that you misquoted yourself.
I wasn't quoting myself. I was quoting YOU. But tell you what - I don't know who you are, you're anonymous, and I see no reason for us to continue this exchange. Pick fights with someone else.
 
>> I made it clear that I "know that an annual counts as 100 hour inspection" <<
Jesus, you just won't let it go. The phrase in quotes is from YOU. Look, if you want to be ugly about it, give me your name and email address and we can take this offline. People don't want to see this type of bickering in here.
 
Jesus, you just won't let it go. The phrase in quotes is from YOU. Look, if you want to be ugly about it, give me your name and email address and we can take this offline. People don't want to see this type of bickering in here.
You're right, and I didn't mean to start an argument about who is quoting who.

But I still don't understand how you can "know" what you know and still ask a question that shows you don't actually know.
 
When I was just an AP without the IA ticket, I maintained trainers for a flight school. For annuals a local IA would come to my maintenance hangar and inspect/discuss my work. His preference was to sign ANNUAL under my log entry in the aircraft logbook, and just leave my entry in the engine logbook as 100hr inspection. FAA(FSDO) inspectors were fine with that. I believe IA's and FSDO personnel have varying ways they interpret the rules
if two people are involved in the process that's the correct procedure. 43.9 states each person, so if a A&P does the maintenance work that normally gets done during an annual, IE new brakes, hose replacement, clean wheel bearings ect, then they must make an entry for that work. the IA is only signing for the inspection that they performed and any work that they performed. I do the inspections on my business partners airplanes, he is an A&P but not an IA. he does all the repairs needed, the cleaning and such. I come by and do the inspection parts. he signs off a 100hr, because he follows the 100hr inspection section of the MM, and any additional work that he has performed. I then sign off the annual inspection.
 
Any redundancy here? IA must do the INSPECTION for an Annual.

So is fuel strainer, wheel bearings, etc Inspection or Servicing?
 
Any redundancy here?
Not really. There are several variations of this 100hr/annual route. For example, for some of my owner-assist customers we would get everything opened up, cleaned, etc., and give things a once over for any issues. When convenient the IA would drop by and perform the annual. When the IA finished, we would then close up and complete any other scheduled tasks. I’d then simply make a 100 hour inspection write up to cover the work and sign it which is a lot easier than itemizing the previous work performed. Any other work that was complied with outside of the 100hr reference used would get its own mx entry.
 
Was the bearings and strainer inspected or serviced?

I agree with you on modus operandi but also know someone that was

spanked for having A & P do Inspection items during an Annual.

Part 1 has no definition of Inspected or Servicing.

Inspection Authorization Information Guide FAA -G-8082 -19

states the Annual is primarily a Visual Inspection and the Annual might be

convenient for servicing.



If it is INSPECTION; then the IA would have to put eyes on the Strainer or

Bearings even though PPL, A&P and IA are all authorized to SERVICE.

Cost the “ Spankee” some $$ and a lot of grief.


There IA’s that acknowledge the aircraft is present but rely on the

A&P for the inspection and just review paperwork.
 
Last edited:
Was the bearings and strainer inspected or serviced?
Yes. Why wouldn't they be inspected or serviced?

Your "spankee" violated the rules so he got hammered. Good for him. Only an IA can perform an annual inspection based on his checklist, so I guess I'm missing your point?
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that even though the A&P did the wheel bearings the

IA must also see them when cleaned?
 
So you are saying that even though the A&P or owner did the wheel bearings the IA must also see them when cleaned inspected?
FTFY. How else would you do it?

FYI: its very easy to prioritize what tasks the IA needs to inspect when concurrently performing 100 hour tasks. Its not rocket science.;)
 
No ; you said “ or owner”.

My question is;:do you agree the IA (not the A&P) must see the cleaned

bearings in order to inspect them?
 
Back
Top