Legal or not?

[jsstevens]

In celebration of Aviation Day (OK, not really, but serendipitously) I went out to fly yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately I got stormed out, but in my preflight I noticed that the plane was .28 hours from it's 100 hour inspection. This raised a question in my mind: I know it's legal to start and finish the flight but what about the next flight? i.e. I startup, fly over to KTIX for dinner (takes about 1/2 hour), and after dinner, the plane is past it's 100 hours. Is it legal to fly it home? or not?

John

 

[tonycondon]

i believet he FARs allow something like a 10 hour overage to get it home for the inspection.

if you were just renting the plane solo you don't need a 100 hr anyway.

 

[chucky]

91.409 is relevant rule in the FARs.

 

[JeffDG]

Were you receiving instruction? Were you carrying persons or property for compensation or hire?

If not, then then 100h inspection is not required for the flight. Renting a plane from an FBO does not subject it to 100h inspections, but if a CFI climbs into the plane, then it does.

 

[jsstevens]

91.409 is relevant rule in the FARs.

Thanks!

 

[jsstevens]

I see that 10 hours is allowable to move the aircraft to the inspection. Given that the owner was going to fly it to the inspection from home base (KORL) does the return trip from my hypothetical dinner count as "movement to inspection"?

And this question was triggered by my inquiry to the owner/Club CFI whether I could use the plane and he said it wouldn't be legal to rent anyway because the 100 hour was due. This is apparently not true since the reg says only carrying a passenger for hire (I'm not - hey I'm only a PP) and I'm not receiveing instruction either.

THanks for the help all, I'm learning something here.

John

 

[tonycondon]

the whole 100hr thing is a common source of misunderstanding and confusion. even for CFI's, obviously. glad to help

 

[John Collins]

Since you are a rental pilot and not obtaining instruction, the 100 Hr requirement doesn't apply to your flight. However, if the airplane has any recurring AD's based on 100 hours, they must be complied with as there is no grace period allowed. In many cases, the AD's are easy to have taken care of in a few minutes by your A&P. When I operated a flight school, we would do them every 50 hours so this wouldn't be an issue for a renter pilot.

 

[Nav8tor]

Here's a little twist on the question. What about using an airplane that's overdue for 100 hr for a checkride? It's not really instruction so is the 100 hr required?

 

[Brad Z]

Here's a little twist on the question. What about using an airplane that's overdue for 100 hr for a checkride? It's not really instruction so is the 100 hr required?

Then you'll have the opportunity to argue the issue with the DPE. Not sure I'd want to start out a check ride that way.

 

[jesse]

Then you'll have the opportunity to argue the issue with the DPE. Not sure I'd want to start out a check ride that way.

I did a checkride with an airplane over the 100 hr. It shouldn't be a problem. Of course, I didn't bring it up and tell the DPE that it was over the 100 hr. Not sure if he noticed while reviewing things or not.

 

[tonycondon]

i think ive sent students to checkrides with airplanes out of 100 hr...

 

[Brad Z]

What if the DPE was employed by the school?

 

[tonycondon]

what difference would it make? checkrides are not flight instruction.

 

[kgruber]

Were you receiving instruction? Were you carrying persons or property for compensation or hire?

If not, then then 100h inspection is not required for the flight. Renting a plane from an FBO does not subject it to 100h inspections, but if a CFI climbs into the plane, then it does.

Not exactly. If the instructor works for the FBO...yes...100Hr inspection is required.

If the instructor is freelancing, no 100Hr inspection required.

 

[nosehair]

in my preflight I noticed that the plane was .28 hours from it's 100 hour inspection. I know it's legal to start and finish the flight but what about the next flight? i.e. I startup, fly over to KTIX for dinner (takes about 1/2 hour), and after dinner, the plane is past it's 100 hours. Is it legal to fly it home? or not?

To answer the substance of your question; ie., if a 100 hour is required, you would not be able to fly back home.

The 10 hour grace period is specifically to move the aircraft to a place of inspection.

You are beginning a flight that will knowingly take the airplane past the 100 hour for the purpose of having dinner. You were already at home base.

But it is true that you don't need a 100 hour for solo flights, according to FARs, but the rental FBO may have that as a policy, and most CFIs and FBOs do think the 100 hour applies to all rentals. And probably some maintenance inspectors, until they try to write it up.

 

[JeffDG]

Then you'll have the opportunity to argue the issue with the DPE. Not sure I'd want to start out a check ride that way.

I tried to show him the log entry for the 100-hr, and he said "I don't care about that, all I need to see is the annual."

 

[Areeda]

I've had a student's checkride almost canceled because of the 100hr inspection. Fortunately we were able to get it done in time, but it took some sweet-talking the mechanic.

Joe

 

[shenanigans]

Not exactly. If the instructor works for the FBO...yes...100Hr inspection is required.

If the instructor is freelancing, no 100Hr inspection required.

I've always wondered about this as I got into an argument with a DPE about it (not during a checkride).

I see where you're getting this from and I'm wondering as to the correct interpretation of that part. If I'm a CFI and I'm giving instruction in the plane I'm providing you, it seems a 100hr is needed. If I'm giving you instruction in your plane, no 100 hr is needed.

Now if I'm working for the FBO and am giving you instruction... I'm not providing the plane - my employer is. So does 100 hr not apply? My guess as to the intent is that it would be needed. But my reading of the letter of the rules says it is not needed. Again, I'm not providing the plane, some one else (my employer) is. Am I reading this right?

 

[kgruber]

I've always wondered about this as I got into an argument with a DPE about it (not during a checkride).

I see where you're getting this from and I'm wondering as to the correct interpretation of that part. If I'm a CFI and I'm giving instruction in the plane I'm providing you, it seems a 100hr is needed. If I'm giving you instruction in your plane, no 100 hr is needed.

Now if I'm working for the FBO and am giving you instruction... I'm not providing the plane - my employer is. So does 100 hr not apply? My guess as to the intent is that it would be needed. But my reading of the letter of the rules says it is not needed. Again, I'm not providing the plane, some one else (my employer) is. Am I reading this right?

No.

If you are working for the FBO that provides the plane, you need a 100Hr. The FBO is providing the plane and instructor.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To answer the substance of your question; ie., if a 100 hour is required, you would not be able to fly back home.

The 10 hour grace period is specifically to move the aircraft to a place of inspection.

You are beginning a flight that will knowingly take the airplane past the 100 hour for the purpose of having dinner. You were already at home base.

Agreed. Strictly personal opinion but The "grace period" in 91.409

==============================
The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done.
==============================

is not applicable to purposely taking off with the intent (or certainly of knowledge) to violate the 100 hour requirement. The purpose of the 10 extra hours is to let you continue to fly if something unplanned for (like a deviation) takes place that causes you to exceed the time period. Or you're based somewhere that doesn't have a maintenance facility. It's not a license to take off with 0.1 remaining on the tach.

 

[Henning]

Here's a little twist on the question. What about using an airplane that's overdue for 100 hr for a checkride? It's not really instruction so is the 100 hr required?

No worries, it's not instruction or a pax for hire so there is no 100hr criteria to be in violation of. Many people take checkrides in their own planes, and they don't require a 100hr either.

 

[taters]

Without looking at FAR's I seem to remember some wording about if the plane is operated in the "flight school environment" it was subject to the 100 hour inspection. That wording always made it easy for me. This means the FBO/Owner has an obligation to do 100 hours if the plane is going to be rented out for instruction but not pure rental not-withstanding some AD's .

 

[DutchessFlier]

Having had my first plane on the leaseback to the flight school, here's the practice:

If the plane is within the 100 hrs, but close enough to it that an instructional flight will cross over the 100 hrs mark, the flight is legal for the duration of the instructional flight (including T-O, landings, etc.) The plane may not be flown for instructional purposes once the instructional flight, which was commenced prior to crossing over the 100hrs has concluded, except for the purpose of ferry flight or flight to move the plane to a MX facility.

Planes leased in the school or owned by the school which were that close to the 100hrs were never used for local student solos and solo X-C flights.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's a little twist on the question. What about using an airplane that's overdue for 100 hr for a checkride? It's not really instruction so is the 100 hr required?

No, it isn't. However, a lot of Cessnas and many Grumman AA-5x's have AD's with a 100-hour recurring inspection requirement. There's zero tolerance on that, and it applies to all flight, not just training or passengers for hire. Make sure you know all the applicable restrictions, not just the 91.409 requirements.

 

[poadeleted20]

Without looking at FAR's I seem to remember some wording about if the plane is operated in the "flight school environment" it was subject to the 100 hour inspection.

Please let us know when you do look at the FAR's and find that requirement. We'll wait...







...for a very long time.

 

[taters]

Without looking at FAR's I seem to remember some wording about if the plane is operated in the "flight school environment" it was subject to the 100 hour inspection. That wording always made it easy for me. This means the FBO/Owner has an obligation to do 100 hours if the plane is going to be rented out for instruction but not pure rental not-withstanding some AD's .

Remember where I got that wording now...notes from my CFI check-ride several years ago at the LAS FSDO with SI Marty Kay . Doesn't ref any FAR's but general idea makes it easy to figure out. That guy smoked at least 30 cigarettes during my oral and I just found some ash in the note/binder I took that day...

To the OP, if your reoccurring AD's and annual were in check your legal.

 

[taters]

Please let us know when you do look at the FAR's and find that requirement. We'll wait...







...for a very long time.

Yes you will because I don't really feel like it:wink2:

 

[midlifeflyer]

Remember where I got that wording now...notes from my CFI check-ride several years ago at the LAS FSDO with SI Marty Kay . Doesn't ref any FAR's but general idea makes it easy to figure out. That guy smoked at least 30 cigarettes during my oral and I just found some ash in the note/binder I took that day...

Problem with generalizations is that by simplifying they end up being technically incorrect.

Yep, "in the flight school environment" is a nice easy generalization that will keep you out of trouble. And there's certainly no harm in and plenty of good business reasons for an FBO to have a policy of keeping all aircraft that are available for flight instruction within 100 hour inspection limits.

But assuming the 100 hour is the only issue, it only applies to "an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire" and to "flight instruction for hire in an aircraft" provided by the instruction provider. Renting an airplane for a flight doesn't fit either.

 

[gprellwitz]

Problem with generalizations is that by simplifying they end up being technically incorrect.

Yep, "in the flight school environment" is a nice easy generalization that will keep you out of trouble. And there's certainly no harm in and plenty of good business reasons for an FBO to have a policy of keeping all aircraft that are available for flight instruction within 100 hour inspection limits.

But assuming the 100 hour is the only issue, it only applies to "an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire" and to "flight instruction for hire in an aircraft" provided by the instruction provider. Renting an airplane for a flight doesn't fit either.

As an aside, one of those good business reasons for requiring 100 hour inspections may be insurance company mandates. You know, that other regulatory agency!

 

[poadeleted20]

Remember where I got that wording now...notes from my CFI check-ride several years ago at the LAS FSDO with SI Marty Kay . Doesn't ref any FAR's but general idea makes it easy to figure out. That guy smoked at least 30 cigarettes during my oral and I just found some ash in the note/binder I took that day...

He must have had some of that ash obscuring that regulation in his FAR/AIM, too, because that "flight school environment" business is totally bogus.

 

[TMetzinger]

This was made perfectly clear in a 1984 opinion from a regional counsel to Perry Rackers of Jefferson City Flying Service.

Does anyone have a copy of the opinion? It's too old to be in the online database. I am trying to convince a local school that a 100-hour inspection as defined in 91.409 doesn't apply to rentals, and that would be helpful.

 

[Doggtyred]

In celebration of Aviation Day (OK, not really, but serendipitously) I went out to fly yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately I got stormed out, but in my preflight I noticed that the plane was .28 hours from it's 100 hour inspection. This raised a question in my mind: I know it's legal to start and finish the flight but what about the next flight? i.e. I startup, fly over to KTIX for dinner (takes about 1/2 hour), and after dinner, the plane is past it's 100 hours. Is it legal to fly it home? or not?

John

As others have said, with regards to 91.409, this flight is legal. If it was an instructional flight or for hire, it would not be. And as one other poster said, some airframes and power plants may have recurring 100 hr inspection requirements by AD that do not have any leeway with regards to for-hire or not. Many flight schools and rental outfits in my area dodge the bullet by requiring the fleet to undergo 100hr's religiously. Not a bad maintenance philosophy because in the process of "inspecting" things you can keep things cleaned, lubed and well cared for. A busy rental may undergo 10-12 100 hr inspections before it undergoes its annual. Thats a lot of wear and tear.

 

[Unbeliever]

No, it isn't. However, a lot of Cessnas and many Grumman AA-5x's have AD's with a 100-hour recurring inspection requirement. There's zero tolerance on that, and it applies to all flight, not just training or passengers for hire.

Re-read that Cessna Seat Rail AD: The 100 hour limit applies to for hire operations. Part 91 not-for-hire is at an annual basis.

AD 87-20-03 R2

Compliance:

II. For airplanes operating under FAR Part 91 (not for hire):

(C) Following the actions of ( A ) or ( B ) above, repeat the AD requirements at each annual inspection thereafter.

The new amendment coming out on that AD modifies the procedure and not the compliance intervals.

--Carlos V.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This was made perfectly clear in a 1984 opinion from a regional counsel to Perry Rackers of Jefferson City Flying Service.

Does anyone have a copy of the opinion? It's too old to be in the online database. I am trying to convince a local school that a 100-hour inspection as defined in 91.409 doesn't apply to rentals, and that would be helpful.

==============================
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 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
==============================

The location of the reg changed; not its substance.

 

[JeffDG]

Without looking at FAR's I seem to remember some wording about if the plane is operated in the "flight school environment" it was subject to the 100 hour inspection. That wording always made it easy for me. This means the FBO/Owner has an obligation to do 100 hours if the plane is going to be rented out for instruction but not pure rental not-withstanding some AD's .

He must have had some of that ash obscuring that regulation in his FAR/AIM, too, because that "flight school environment" business is totally bogus.

The "flight school environment" is not regulation-based, but is practically the case. It would be a logistical nightmare for a flight-school type FBO that did not do 100h inspections on aircraft to keep track of which ones could be used for instruction and which could not.

Well, they could segregate their fleet and only allow certain planes for instruction...but that would be cutting off a chunk of their customer base (students) from a chunk of their aircraft...not the best business decision, although it might be weighed against the cost of 100h inspections...maybe something like a retract that has high inspection costs and infrequent instruction.

 

[TMetzinger]

The "flight school environment" is not regulation-based, but is practically the case. It would be a logistical nightmare for a flight-school type FBO that did not do 100h inspections on aircraft to keep track of which ones could be used for instruction and which could not.

Well, they could segregate their fleet and only allow certain planes for instruction...but that would be cutting off a chunk of their customer base (students) from a chunk of their aircraft...not the best business decision, although it might be weighed against the cost of 100h inspections...maybe something like a retract that has high inspection costs and infrequent instruction.

Not so... what many smart schools do is try and schedule the airplane for 100 hour inspections properly, but they know that if it's due in 3 hours they can still dispatch for rental purposes past the 100 hour mark. That means that a renter wanting it for five hours when there's only four left on the 100-hour clock can still go.

 

[JeffDG]

Not so... what many smart schools do is try and schedule the airplane for 100 hour inspections properly, but they know that if it's due in 3 hours they can still dispatch for rental purposes past the 100 hour mark. That means that a renter wanting it for five hours when there's only four left on the 100-hour clock can still go.

Excellent point.

 

[dmccormack]

Not so... what many smart schools do is try and schedule the airplane for 100 hour inspections properly, but they know that if it's due in 3 hours they can still dispatch for rental purposes past the 100 hour mark. That means that a renter wanting it for five hours when there's only four left on the 100-hour clock can still go.

...and back when I was renting I saw that happen several times.