LEGAL CORNER 100-Hour Inspection Timing the I
f you work for or operate an FBO or fl ight school that off ers aircraft rental as well as fl ight instruction, whether Part 61 or 141, you know the timing for completing aircraft inspections can be confusing. I’m not talking
about the annual inspection that must be conducted on all aircraft every 12 calendar months or sooner pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a). That requirement isn’t particularly confusing. Rather, it is the 100-hour inspection under 14 C.F.R. 91.409(b) and its timing and limitations that are sometimes misunderstood. Section 91.409(b) states that “no person may operate
an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmem- ber) for hire, and no person may give fl ight 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.” The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by up to 10 hours as long as that time accrues while the aircraft is en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. However, if that happens, the additional time used to fl y to the facility performing the inspection must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time for the aircraft to be in service. In order to determine whether the 100-hour inspec- tion is required for an aircraft that is used for both fl ight instruction and rental, and when that inspection is due, we need to look at how the aircraft is operated during a particular fl ight. This is where some of the confusion occurs. If the fl ight is operated for the purposes of provid- ing fl ight instruction, then the aircraft must have had an annual or 100-hour inspection within the preceding 100 hours of time in service. If the aircraft is simply rented to a customer without a pilot or fl ight instructor, then the aircraft need not have had an annual or 100-hour inspec- tion within the preceding 100 hours of time in service. How does this apply in real life? Here are some scenari- os where the FBO or fl ight school uses an aircraft for both fl ight instruction and rental and how Section 91.409(b) might or might not apply to the example fl ights.
EXAMPLE ONE A customer reserves an aircraft for rental only and antici- pates fl ying approximately 10 hours. When the customer reserves the aircraft, it has a total of 95 hours of time in service since the aircraft’s last annual inspection. If the customer’s fl ight does not exceed 10 hours and a 100-hour
01.02 2015
40
inspection is performed upon the aircraft’s return, does this violate Section 91.409(b)? No, because the aircraft is not being operated for hire or to provide fl ight instruction. In fact, when the customer returns the aircraft it does not need an annual or 100-hour inspection unless it is going to be used for fl ight instruction, or 12 calendar months have elapsed since the aircraft’s last annual inspection.
EXAMPLE TWO The FBO or fl ight school dispatches an aircraft on a local training fl ight with a fl ight instructor and student pilot that is anticipated to last one hour and does so. At the time of dispatch, the aircraft has accumulated 99.9 hours of time in service since the aircraft’s last inspection. A 100-hour inspection of the aircraft is performed when the aircraft returns from the fl ight.
Is this a violation of Section 91.409(b)? Yes, because
the fl ight instructor and student pilot clearly intend to fl y beyond the 100-hour limitation during their training fl ight. The 10-hour grace period does not apply because the aircraft was not being fl own en route to a location where the inspection will be performed. Rather, the aircraft was operated on a local training fl ight that does not benefi t from the 10-hour grace period. As a result, Section 91.409(b) is violated after the fi rst tenth of an hour during the training fl ight. If the FBO or fl ight school wants to continue to use the aircraft for fl ight instruction after this fl ight, an annual or 100-hour inspection must be performed and the next inspection after that must be performed before the next 91 hours of time in service.
EXAMPLE THREE An aircraft is dispatched on a cross-country training fl ight with a fl ight instructor and student pilot. The fl ight is antici- pated to take 1.5 hours of fl ight time to the destination and also 1.5 hours of fl ight time on the return trip. When the fl ight departs, the aircraft has accumulated 97 hours of time in service since its last inspection. During the cross country fl ight, unexpected winds and ATC vectoring result in the trip taking a total of 3.1 hours fl ight time. Upon return, a 100-hour inspection of the aircraft is conducted. This situation does not violate Section 91.409(b). Why?
The fl ight instructor and student pilot did not intend to overfl y the 100-hour limitation. Additionally, the 100- hour limitation was exceeded while the aircraft was en route to a location where the required inspection will be
By Gregory J. Reigel
DOMmagazine
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
