I'm meeting a new instructor/FAA examiner this weekend to see if he would make a good instructor for me in my own Piper Cherokee 180.
We seem to get along on the phone but he told me to bring my logbooks because the aircraft needs to be inspected every 100 hrs for him to be legal to instuct in. I thought that was just for flight schools and their own aircraft.When i questioned him about this he seemed to get a bit short with me....hmmm...I could be wrong but I don't think I need my aircraft inspected every 100 hrs for him to be legal. I will call my local FAA flight standing office tomorrow. What do you all think?
(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.
Now, unless you've flown more than 100 hours since your annual, it's rather a moot point as an annual will stand in place of a 100 hour inspection, but I'd be rather worried about an instructor who doesn't know the regs...
You are correct. the 100 hour is only for an airplane that is "for hire". you are providing the airplane. you are only hiring him not his airplane. if he were hiring out his airplane then it would need a 100 hour inspection.
if he wants to get huffy have him read 14CFR Part 91.409(b) again.
then you can split hairs about the FAA's defination of the term "for hire".
if he refuses to give the instruction then find a different instructor.
many of these Designated Examiners have a bit of the God Complex and can be a bit problematic.
I had one that refused to ride in the airplane until the door got fixed. the only problem with the door was the operator. She didnt get it latched correctly and it popped open. I tried to explain that it was adjusted correctly and there was no defect but she wouldnt go up until I signed it off as repaired.
> [T]he 100 hour is only for an airplane that is "for hire".
Not quite. An airplane can be available for hire as a rental airplane (ie. one which a pilot pays for and then flies himself) without needing a 100 hour inspection. The inspection is only required if the airplane is carrying people for hire (eg. peforming common carriage under Part 135 or private carriage under Parts 91 or 125) or if it is being rented out by a flight school which also provides flight instruction in that plane or if you pay a freelance instructor to provide instruction in his own airplane or one that he provides.
yes Mike,
again you are proving to be much more eloquent than I and no doubt can type much faster too.
Thats kinda what I meant when I said that part about splitting hairs on the definition of the term for hire.
The regulation is tailor made for this case in that it specifically states the the instructor has to provide the airplane in order for it to require a 100 hour inspection.
hopefully I havent confused anyone other than myself.
I checked with the FAA and if you are using your own airplane during instruction then the aircraft must be inspected every 100HRS or an annual which ever comes first. Good to know
> I checked with the FAA and if you are using your own
> airplane during instruction then the aircraft must be
> inspected every 100HRS or an annual which ever comes
> first. Good to know.
It is true that if you are using your own airplane to give instruction, the plane needs a 100 hour inspection, but if you are using your own airplane to receive it, it does not. I therefore repsectfully dispute the advice they are giving you. Can you post (or private message to me) the name and phone number of the person to whom you spoke? I'd like to hear how they came to this conclusion.
Here's an FAA Counsel's opinion that mentions this issue. The FAR section has changed its number since then, but the wording is the same, and so therefore should be the interpretation...
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,
Joseph T. Brennan
Associate Regional Counsel.
Aside from Mike's excellent description of the regulatory issue, this is one of those times it seems people have just lost their common sense. I'm no attorney so I tend to simplify things, but I interpret this whole body of FARs as related to "purchaser protection," meaning that if the aircraft is being used to generate revenue from an activity, the purchaser should have a reasonable expectation that the aircraft is fit for that purpose. Thus, 100 hour inspections are required.
In the instance that started this post, the aircraft isn't being used to generate any revenue for its owner/operator...just the oppposite. The owner/operator is paying an additional amount to the DE for the instruction. So while the DE may have established personal minimums for the craft in which he flies, there's no requirement for the 100 hour.
You can tell it's a slow Friday at work...I'm spending way too much time in the forums today!
> I interpret this whole body of FARs
> as related to "purchaser protection"
I think that's right on the money, and in keeping with the FAA's view in many matters. For example, a Part 91 operator can do all sorts of things (zero-zero take-offs, starting an approach below mins...) that a commerical operator cannot, as the FARs do not exist to protect people from themselves to the same extent as they exist to protect the paying customer who might be unaware of the realities of generation aviation.
An instructor told me the same thing when I wanted to use my own airplane with an instructor to achieve some of the training requirements.
I disagreed and wrote AOPA. Their opinion was that if I was using my OWN plane to RECEIVE instruction from an instructor (paid or not), I did not need a 100 hour inspection.
One further reference on this: Jepp have an excellent book entitled "The FARs Explained", which provides guidance and interpretation on various regulatory matters. It was written by two senior aviation attornies, one of whom was an attorney for the FAA for some 27 years. In respect of FAR 91.401(b) it contains the following guidance...
"If a person provides her/her own aircraft when receiving flight instruction that is being given for hire, the aircraft is not required to have a 100-hour inspection." [Emphasis added.]
I'm struggling for any more supporting material, but I'm not convinced I need any. I would normally be tempted to write to the FAA's Cheif Counsel to get a ruling on something where there appear to be different interpreations, but on this matter, the regulation seems so clear on its face that I'm afraid they'd laugh...
