Does it needs a 100 hour inspection?

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
A 172 is use as a trainer and for personal use of the owner. (who is a CFII).

The Annual was preform at 5400 TT
the first 25 hours after that was for personal use no training. (TT 5425.0)
the next 75 Hours were all training provided by the owner. TT5600.0)

Is it legally due for a 100 hour?
 
Is the owner of the plane also the CFI that trains with it?

If so, YES to the 100hr, because the plane and the CFI comes from the same place, thus commercial ops.

Now if the owner rented the plane to student Bob, and Bob went on his own to say POA and found a freelance CFI, no 100hr is needed.


And obviously the 100hr is from the last annual or 100hr.
 
I would say yes under the conditions you described Tom.
 
Is there anything particularly unclear about:

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
​
?
 
I assume you meant the airplane now has 5500TT, not 5600, but yeah, it now needs a 100 hr. to continue to give instruction in it.
 
A 100 hour inspection is only due if he wants to continue to give instruction in the airplane. If he doesn't want to keep giving instruction in the plane, no 100hr is required. And really, he could fly the plane X hours for personal use, and if he decides he wants to use it for instruction again, do a 100 hour inspection then (or ensure he's hasn't flown more than 100 hours since his last annual inspection) and start doing instruction again.
 
Have to do a 100 hr,to keep giving instruction.
 
bradg33 said:
A 100 hour inspection is only due if he wants to continue to give instruction in the airplane. If he doesn't want to keep giving instruction in the plane, no 100hr is required. And really, he could fly the plane X hours for personal use, and if he decides he wants to use it for instruction again, do a 100 hour inspection then (or ensure he's hasn't flown more than 100 hours since his last annual inspection) and start doing instruction again.
Click to expand...

I think the premise was that the owner is continuing to use it for instruction he provides. If not, it is a moot issue.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Is there anything particularly unclear about:

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
​
?
Click to expand...
Yes. I learned this when I asked about partnerships. If I make a club or a partnership the 100 hour is required if I insist on being the only instructor. If I allow the partners the option of hiring their own CFI (as mentioned in another post) then 100 hour goes away.
 
Glen will be here to give you an answer in 3....2.....1.....
 
aftCG said:
Yes. I learned this when I asked about partnerships. If I make a club or a partnership the 100 hour is required if I insist on being the only instructor. If I allow the partners the option of hiring their own CFI (as mentioned in another post) then 100 hour goes away.
Click to expand...
Maybe. There are Chief Counsel Interpretations going back into the 1970s at least suggesting that a co-owner/equity flying club member is the one providing the aircraft even if the instructor is also a member. It is not clear whether limiting instructors to people who are also club members changes that.
 
bradg33 said:
A 100 hour inspection is only due if he wants to continue to give instruction in the airplane. If he doesn't want to keep giving instruction in the plane, no 100hr is required. And really, he could fly the plane X hours for personal use, and if he decides he wants to use it for instruction again, do a 100 hour inspection then (or ensure he's hasn't flown more than 100 hours since his last annual inspection) and start doing instruction again.
Click to expand...

Nope, a 100 hour is required. You can’t parse the hours out like that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Melting said:
Nope, a 100 hour is required. You can’t parse the hours out like that.
Click to expand...
Why not? If the airplane is not being used for instruction (or paying passengers) on a flight, no 100 hour inspection is required.

A good place to start when looking at the issue is the 2015 Greenwood Letter which sets out multiple scenarios, some of which parse the rule in the way you seem to object to.
 
I am happy you guys agree with me on this.
I know the owner of the 172 reads these forums, he did not agree with me when I notified him he was due.
Thanks, I now have one less customer.
 
Tom-D said:
I am happy you guys agree with me on this.
I know the owner of the 172 reads these forums, I did not agree with me when I notified him he was due.
Thanks, I now have one less customer.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it’s a simple typo, but unclear of the meaning because everthing is “I’s”.
 
mscard88 said:
Boys are just out of jail, give a few days before it starts again lol
Click to expand...
Tom learned a few things the last go round, He now knows how to tell a guy to go to hell and make him look forward to the trip.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Why not? If the airplane is not being used for instruction (or paying passengers) on a flight, no 100 hour inspection is required.

A good place to start when looking at the issue is the 2015 Greenwood Letter which sets out multiple scenarios, some of which parse the rule in the way you seem to object to.
Click to expand...

A) What a terrible, poorly written interpretation on a few of the points.

B) As you state, this interpretation, in scenario 6, covers exactly the scenario I described above.
 
The bizarre related problem is that while everybody seems to pretty much understand the "flight instruction where the instructor provides the aircraft" part on this, the FAA adopts the same interpretation to giving instruction in experimentals. Oddly, there is no such REGULATORY provision in the experimental limitations. It just says you "carrying passengers for hire" without the mention of flight instruction. So here we have a gross and intentional misapplication of the regulation (my opinion) or we have unnecessary regulatory verbiage in the 100 hour part (if you think instruction is carrying passengers for hire).
 
Tom-D said:
I am happy you guys agree with me on this.
I know the owner of the 172 reads these forums, he did not agree with me when I notified him he was due.
Thanks, I now have one less customer.
Click to expand...

Why, because you were right? What's he going to do now, go find an IA that agrees with him?

I don't get it.
 
It’s all on the owner regardless. The A&P/IA simply performs the inspection requested. If the plane is required to have 100 hour inspections due to how it is being used but the owner just takes it to an IA for its annual every year, the owner is responsible for the missed inspections not the IA. He is simply responsible for performing an annual inspection to standards.
 
flyingron said:
The bizarre related problem is that while everybody seems to pretty much understand the "flight instruction where the instructor provides the aircraft" part on this, the FAA adopts the same interpretation to giving instruction in experimentals. Oddly, there is no such REGULATORY provision in the experimental limitations. It just says you "carrying passengers for hire" without the mention of flight instruction. So here we have a gross and intentional misapplication of the regulation (my opinion) or we have unnecessary regulatory verbiage in the 100 hour part (if you think instruction is carrying passengers for hire).
Click to expand...
I agree with you on a lot of the unnecessary. But I'm not so sure of the misapplication part. There are some differences between 91.409 and 91.319.

91.409 has the "other than a crewmember" language which, at least arguably leads to the need for the additional flight training language. OTOH, 91.319 has 91.319(h) "permitting deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training," which pretty much tells us that, semantic dances aside, the 91.319(a) prohibition applies to flight training.
 
Which is unsupported by the regulatory construction. (H) was added long after the FAA started misconstruing flight instruction as carrying passengers for hire. It boggles the mind. The FAA doesn't even consider (rightfully) that flight instruction is a piloting operation (allowing the instructor to have either NO medical at all or a third class).

By the inane interpretation of "for hire" we should all have landing lights, and life rafts, and second class medicals when giving instruction. Only the phrasing in 91.319 seems so misinterpretted.

This all dates back to some real turds who used to work in AFS-400. Unfortunately, you have to live by the FAA's misconstrual of regs they write themselves. The APA pretty much makes the courts unconstitutionally defer to the FAA as judge, jury, and executioner here. It makes a mockery of the checks and balances are founding fathers THOUGHT they were putting into place.
 
flyingron said:
Which is unsupported by the regulatory construction. (H) was added long after the FAA started misconstruing flight instruction as carrying passengers for hire. It boggles the mind. The FAA doesn't even consider (rightfully) that flight instruction is a piloting operation (allowing the instructor to have either NO medical at all or a third class).

By the inane interpretation of "for hire" we should all have landing lights, and life rafts, and second class medicals when giving instruction. Only the phrasing in 91.319 seems so misinterpretted.

This all dates back to some real turds who used to work in AFS-400. Unfortunately, you have to live by the FAA's misconstrual of regs they write themselves. The APA pretty much makes the courts unconstitutionally defer to the FAA as judge, jury, and executioner here. It makes a mockery of the checks and balances are founding fathers THOUGHT they were putting into place.
Click to expand...
I guess I see both sides of the issue. It's an occupational disability.
 
flyingron said:
The APA pretty much makes the courts unconstitutionally defer to the FAA as judge, jury, and executioner here. It makes a mockery of the checks and balances are founding fathers THOUGHT they were putting into place.
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly what Administration Law does in any department of our country?
 
Tom-D said:
Isn't that exactly what Administration Law does in any department of our country?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, but the FAA is the one that affects me the most. The IRS at least uses enacted law and real courts.
 
Tom-D said:
Isn't that exactly what Administration Law does in any department of our country?
Click to expand...
Yes it does the same thing with any department, but it's not the APA with "makes" the courts defer - that would be unconstitutional in the purest Marbury v Madison sense. Rather, it was the courts which developed the "Chevron" deference doctrine. For better or worse, the SCOTUS decided that administrative agencies develop expertise in the subject, so it makes sense to ascept an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless the court finds the interpretation to be unreasonable.

In the case of the FAA, before the Pilots Bill of Rights, the NTSB was indeed directed to defer to the FAA and not substitute its own judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top