100 Hour Inspection

MikeOH58

MikeOH58

Well-Known Member
I work for a private family and fly/manage their aircraft. One of the airplanes is an SR22. We do 50 hour oil/filter changes and 100 hour inspections. Due to increased flying lately the 50 hour oil change was done around the 70 hour mark. I honestly can't remember if the fact that i'm a professional pilot and paid a salary by the owner makes us a "for hire" operation having to comply with 100 hour inspections?

I'd like to do the 100 hour 50 hours from now rather then 30. Can someone provide guidance? As a former CFI i'm pretty embarrassed that I don't remember!
 
Pretty sure you still have to do it at 100 on the tach. You can only go over if you're doing so to fly the aircraft to wherever the 100 hour is to be done. An oil change isn't an inspection.
 
Oh, sorry, kinda misunderstood your question. I'm not sure about whether that qualifies as "for hire" either.
 
I've not researched it, but as far as I know under 91 a 100hr isn't required, although it might be prudent. I've never worked on small GA aircraft so take any opinions I provide with a grain of salt. Also I don't think the fact that your being paid to fly the airplane for the owners changes anything.
 
It's the 100hr per manufacture/warranty/AD(?) requirement.

With your situation 91.409(b) is not applicable. People are not paying your aircraft's owner/operator to pay you to fly them around.
 
Last edited:
TwoTwoLeft said:
It's the 100hr per manufacture/warranty/AD(?) requirement.

With your situation 91.409(b) is not applicable. People are not paying your aircraft's owner/operator to pay you to fly them around.
Click to expand...
Sadly my FAR skills have diminished over the years. I just work according to the AMM or SRM as required. I'm looking at getting my IA, then perhaps I can feel like an authority on many things regarding airworthiness, but I doubt it. As many times as I present a "perfect" airplane to a crew and they depart with no issues they will come back just as often with a list of faults that weren't present prior to their last trip. It's symbiotic, pilots break airplanes, mechanics fix them. Neither would be gainfully employed without the other.
 
Don't have to do a 100 hr inspection. Careful though because you may have ADs due at 100 hour intervals that have no provision for overflying. I know that is the case on every one of our aircraft, we could in theory overfly the 100 hour 91 to do flight training or to get the airplane back but all of them have drop-dead ADs due at 100 hour intervals.
 
100 hour not required unless the plane is being used for hire.

If AD's or something from the manufacture requires a 100 hour inspection that's a different story. Many if not most big bore engines require a 100 hour on the exhaust system.
 
So lets muddy the water a little bit. Suppose the airplane is owned by abc llc, and has a dry lease with xyz llc who operates the aircraft. abc is a subsidiary of xyz (parent company). Again, part 91 operations only. Any changes to 100 hour requirement?
 
MikeOH58 said:
So lets muddy the water a little bit. Suppose the airplane is owned by abc llc, and has a dry lease with xyz llc who operates the aircraft. abc is a subsidiary of xyz (parent company). Again, part 91 operations only. Any changes to 100 hour requirement?
Click to expand...
Is ABC paying XYZ for the plane and pilot?
 
MikeOH58 said:
So lets muddy the water a little bit. Suppose the airplane is owned by abc llc, and has a dry lease with xyz llc who operates the aircraft. abc is a subsidiary of xyz (parent company). Again, part 91 operations only. Any changes to 100 hour requirement?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the 100 hr per 91.409, no. As long as the flying services are kept internal with the company. The moment they provide a flying service to an outside party 91.409 becomes applicable.

Even to legally conduct an operation where 91.409 applies, your operation will be very specific and you'll be operating under a LOA.
 
Last edited:
TwoTwoLeft said:
If you're referring to the 100 hr per 91.409, no. As long as the flying services are kept internal with the company. The moment they provide a flying service to an outside party 91.409 becomes applicable.
Click to expand...
It sounds like they are using an outside company. Remember, corporations are people. :-)
 
mojo6911 said:
It sounds like they are using an outside company. Remember, corporations are people. :)
Click to expand...

He said ABC is a subsidiary of XYZ... From my experience with this you have a pilot who owns a company (non aviation) buys an airplane and forms a separate LLC with the airplane.
The parent company then pays the subsidiary for the use of the airplane in the furtherance of the parent companies business. This seems to be fairly common since there are accounting benefits to it. If the two companies were truly viewed as separate entities then the airplane's LLC would essentially be an on demand charter operator for the parent company. I know it's been done under 91, but HOW it's works I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
The reason there are two separate companies and a lease exist between the two is because in the eyes of the FAA, they don't care that ABC is a subsidiary of XYZ. Two separate companies, and if ABC's only purpose is that of being an llc for an aircraft, operating under part 91 would be questionable at best. At least thats how I understand it from the company flight trip and multiple nbaa structure of ownership sessions.
 
This thread confuses me, and it shouldn't. I've never performed or worked on an aircraft that requires a 100 hr. inspection. It makes me feel like a dullard, and I'm pretty sure my dog is dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top