Overflying 100 hour inspection

[trafficinsight]

Why aren't there any FAA inspectors nerdy enough to get a JC handle and start posting on this board, especially to help us in scenarios like this?

I'm guessing that there are a couple, but in the interest of not stifling discourse they don't let out that they are. At any rate, the FAR's really aren't that hard to interpret, if you think they are you should try to understand OSHA regs sometime. A lot of people will tell you about this gray area or how stupid that is... but I find that they are written the way they are for a reason, and there are very few actual gray areas, only people who choose to skirt noncompliance.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I have heard of very few flight schools that give full responsibility for their aircraft to non-soloing student pilots or whose insurance would permit them to. As a result, I have heard of very few flight schools that have attempted to take the position, "we rent to the students directly so we don't need to do 100-hour inspections." Almost all that I am familiar with take the view that "we supply instructors and airplanes and therefore our approved instructors are providing the airplanes."

The FAA has taken the position that a private club member (even a student) is the one providing the airplane so no 100 hour is required. Whether the FAA would take the same position with respect to a commercial flight rental/training operation is an open question. I can only guess at the answer, but FWIW, I wouldn't teach at one that did.

Update:

I was looking for something else and came across this November FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. http://tinyurl.com/bo8u322

==============================
The 100-hour inspection requirement applies when the instructor provides both flight instruction for hire and the aircraft used for instruction. This requirement does not apply if the person receiving instruction provides the aircraft. When the person receiving instruction provides the aircraft, the annual inspection requirement under §91.409(a) applies. The person receiving instruction could provide an aircraft he or she owns or an aircraft he or she leases. See Legal Interpretation to Berry Rackers (May 3, 1984) (interpreting §91.169(b), the predecessor to to §91.409(b)). However, if the person receiving instruction does not own the aircraft, the FAA may review the manner by. which that person provided the aircraft to ensure the instructor, or an entity represented by the instructor, did not effectively provide the aircraft. (my emphasis)
==============================

 

[Mike H]

My personal opinion (not a formal legal one) is the the extra hours are not there so you can plan for a flight that overflies it. If you have 4-hour flight to do with and inspection dues in 3, starting the flight would not buy you the "grace" period.

Totally agree. Overflying the 100 hour limit in that scenario is entirely avoidable.

 

[MercFE]

I know we operate under our own rules and all, but the military rules are founded on FAA principles for the most part.

Any of our flight hour based inspections are granted a 10% plus or minus window to be completed in. If we did have a 100 hour inspection, we could even take off at the 109.9 hour mark and be legal. However, the aircraft would be grounded for the inspection after the flight.

I'm really curious about the interpretation of this FAA retirement, as I'm hoping to continue with flying and maintenance when I retire.

Sent from my DROIDX using Forum Runner

 

[lorenfrench]

Have an interesting scenario - any thoughts would be appreciated. I have a DA-20 I lease back to a flight school. As we all know - in order to rent it needs to have the 100 hour - fine, that's straight forward. It seems however that if the hours used beyond the 100 hour are not revenue hours - I.e. I can take my own plane and fly around then the over 100 hour is irrelevant, and to put the plane back in good standing for rental is just the requirement to get another 100 hour done. So it would be some thing like this....

Airplane get's fresh 100 hour at Tach 2200
Flight School Uses and rents plane from 2200 thru 2300
At 2300 I take my airplane and fly 50 more hours to alaska and back (airplane has annual but not 100 hour)
Upon return plane tach is 2350 so I get another 100 hour done.
Flight school is now clear to rent airplane until tach 2450
Next I take a couple days and fly my plane to some other place for 20-30 hours and repeat the process another 100hr, and another 100 hours of rental.

Does anyone see any reason why this couldn't be done this way. Seems a rental aircraft should be able to enter into and leave rental status this easily, and thus timing your personal use of your aircraft you can maximize the rental hours and the associated 100 hour inspection costs.

 

[rframe]

in order to rent it needs to have the 100 hour - fine, that's straight forward.

Wrong, 100 hour is not required for rental, but is required for the flight school to give instruction in it.

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

Renting an airplane is not "carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire", otherwise every single non-commercial certificated pilot would be busting FAR's every time they rent an airplane, since they are prohibited from operating an aircraft for hire.

As for the rest of the question, yes you can just get another 100 hour when you are done and the school is going to start instructing in it again because you would comply with the condition "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".

The only time the 10 hour over-run rule applies is if you are operating the flight for hire or instruction during that over-run and it's on it's return trip to base.

My opinion is worth what you paid for it but it's a simple regulation that I think a lot of people wayyyy overcomplicate.... just read the regs, it's pretty straightforward.... people add complication where it's really quite simple.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Have an interesting scenario - any thoughts would be appreciated. I have a DA-20 I lease back to a flight school. As we all know - in order to rent it needs to have the 100 hour

We don't know that at all. You need a 100 hour in order to (1) give paid flight instruction and (2) to carry passengers for hire (read the reg; it actually specifically says this). Purely tenting an airplane is neither.

Might also want to note that the reg also doesn't say you need an inspection every 100 hour, but that you need to have has the inspection "within the preceding 100 hours" before you use it for a covered flight.

Do you want to try the question again?

 

[rframe]

Have an interesting scenario - any thoughts would be appreciated.

One more note for you. The scope of inspection is identical for a 100-hour vs an Annual inspection per part 43. The only difference is that a simple A&P can sign off the 100 hour inspection while an IA must sign off the Annual.... so, to get maximum value if a 100 hour is due, have them sign it off as a new Annual Inspection.

It's totally possible to have an Annual in May, have a 100 hour done in March of the following year, and turn around and pay to have the exact same inspection done in May again, unless you're wise enough to know that they are the same inspection with just different signature requirements.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I suppose I consider "flight school" to mean a business that rents airplanes, sometimes to student pilots. I don't know about your insurance, but ours could care less about the student's qualifications since an instructor will be with them.

Exactly the point. The instructor is providing the airplane, not the student. (btw, see my update to the post and what the FAA Chief Counsel has said about the scenario)

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Ah, I see the updated post didn't make it into the new software.

==============================
However, if the person receiving instruction does not own the aircraft, the FAA may review the manner by. which that person provided the aircraft to ensure the instructor, or an entity represented by the instructor, did not effectively provide the aircraft.
==============================

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2011/Colvin.pdf

 

[trafficinsight]

the FAA may review the manner

Meaning unless I own the airplane I'm doing my flight training in then it's open to interpretation as to who provided the airplane, but it doesn't mean that the instructor automatically has provided it, unless the instructor is also the airplane owner. That all depends on how your flight school is set up.

Mine does not require 100hr inspections.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Meaning unless I own the airplane I'm doing my flight training in then it's open to interpretation as to who provided the airplane, but it doesn't mean that the instructor automatically has provided it, unless the instructor is also the airplane owner.

I agree with you.

But the key for me is the question of who "effectively provide the aircraft." To me, that's an invitation to an analysis similar to the "operational control" analysis that's done when a commercial pilot and a passenger walk into a FBO to rent an airplane which is used to fly the passenger somewhere. Did the FBO "effectively" rent it to the non-pilot passenger or to the pilot who is flying it?

I have not seen anything in this rental situation but, in the case of a problem (which is how these things tend to come up), while it certainly can go either way, my money's going to be generally on "student + CFI approved by the flight school = CFI (or "entity represented by the instructor") provided the aircraft.

I can see situations where that would not be the case. For example, if the flight school will allow a student to choose any flight instructor, including those not associated with the flight school, I'm guessing the FAA would say that the CFI didn't provide the airplane.

 

[rframe]

My situation is a good example. I rent my airplane to others and I do not employ any CFI's, yet I have some authorized on my insurance to give instruction in my plane. I in no way control the times or ways in which they provide instruction, they are truly independent. Students can rent my airplane and they can get their own CFI, those are two different transactions. Student is sourcing their own airplane.

That all said, I still do 100 hour inspections. It just seems to make a lot more sense to have a qualified mechanic/IA taking a good look at the airplane every 100 hours to catch any developing issues or things that a typical preflight might miss. It also helps ensure AD's are up to date.

Further, I'm not sure how it might look in a civil case if someone were to be involved in an incident and there were any questions of mechanical failure, if the aircraft were not on a 100 hour inspection cycle. Might not be legally required, but could the lawyers run with it? I'll bet they would try at least.

 

[ahsmatt7]

My thoughts are only worth their weight in gold but to me it would be ok to fly to point A since you said there is available MX. However, once you take off out of Point A, you aren't legal because you are flying to an airport that doesn't have MX and therefore you wouldn't fall under the grace umbrella since you knowingly started a flight to a destination without an MX facility. So that would make the second leg illegal but the first and last leg legal due to the MX facilities at the destination of each leg.