Is a 100 hour required?

DavidWhite

DavidWhite

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,132
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Display Name
Display name:
DW
So a guy has an airplane that he leases for a dry rate to a company. This company has a part time pilot but the plane is ONLY leased to that company. Is a 100 hour inspection required?
 
And the pilot (who is incredibly good looking) thinks the last annual wasn't as thorough as it should have been and kinda wants a 100 hour inspection done anyways.
 
Depends on what the company leasing the plane is doing with it. If they're transporting passengers for hire, or giving flight training with an instructor they provide, yes, it is required. Otherwise, no. See 91.409 for the regulatory language.
 
By saying the pilot is incredibly good looking, I'm assuming it's a female. If it is, man up and offer to lend a hand....with anything.
 
Ron Levy said:
Depends on what the company leasing the plane is doing with it. If they're transporting passengers for hire, or giving flight training with an instructor they provide, yes, it is required. Otherwise, no. See 91.409 for the regulatory language.
Click to expand...

The only passengers are employees of the company. It is not used for anything but business strictly related to the company.
 
JB1842 said:
By saying the pilot is incredibly good looking, I'm assuming it's a female. If it is, man up and offer to lend a hand....with anything.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if it's a female? If the OP thinks he/she/it is incredibly good looking, then he should go for it regardless. :yes:
 
JB1842 said:
By saying the pilot is incredibly good looking, I'm assuming it's a female. If it is, man up and offer to lend a hand....with anything.
Click to expand...

Our hero is a man - a very good looking man.

(Steve Winwood starts playing in the background)
 
As they would state in that City across the Bay, "You go boy!"
 
DavidWhite said:
The only passengers are employees of the company. It is not used for anything but business strictly related to the company.
Click to expand...

No 100hr required, welcome to the world of being a utility pilot. If you have specific concerns, talk to maintenance.
 
DavidWhite said:
:D

However, after some sage advice from Henning, maybe ill be back in the game soon.

I'm gonna steal Jesses dog and take a trip to the park.
Click to expand...

That always works. After I got my dog, he was greeted first, and myself second.
 
DavidWhite said:
The only passengers are employees of the company. It is not used for anything but business strictly related to the company.
Click to expand...
Then no 100-hour is required.

That said, there may be other good reasons for doing 100-hour, especially if it is used enough that it gets to 100 hours long before the annual is due, but those would be safety issues, not regulatory ones.
 
Oh, you might consider giving him a bath and nailing him with Avon Skin So Soft. Smells good and repels fleas.
 
You've been changing the oil in this thing? Then I suggest getting some tips from an A&P and doing your own inspections while the cowling is off.

I NEVER waste the opportunity to look it over when the cowl is off. But later Cessnas only have the tiny port hole to keep pilots out so its the only time I can actually see much.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then no 100-hour is required.

That said, there may be other good reasons for doing 100-hour, especially if it is used enough that it gets to 100 hours long before the annual is due, but those would be safety issues, not regulatory ones.
Click to expand...


There may be regulatory (recurring AD's) that David is unaware of...
 
bnt83 said:
There may be regulatory (recurring AD's) that David is unaware of...
Click to expand...
That is true, and why I suggested checking the plane at least every 100 hours anyway, but from a regulatory standpoint, compliance with those AD's does not require a full 100-hour inspection, just doing whatever the AD says. Note also that there may be AD's of less than 100 hours recurrence, like the 25-hour air filter inspection on Grumman Cheetahs without the modified retainer screen.
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, there may be other good reasons for doing 100-hour, especially if it is used enough that it gets to 100 hours long before the annual is due, but those would be safety issues, not regulatory ones.
Click to expand...
Discussions with our mechanic about creating Denton Flying Club brought up this same thought (and we're still working out our do we or don't we compliance with the applicable FAR).

His line of thinking is that the aircraft is being used/abused enough that conducting 100-hr style inspections would catch a key maintenance issue while it's small and easily fixed and before it's difficult, expensive, and grounds the plane for extended period.
 
when I flew a turbo bonanza like that for some doctors...we flew something like 5-600 hours a year....an annual would have been 20 grand by the time we got to annual...100 hour not required but goes along way. we actually followed (most)of a program for bonanzas on P135..dispatch rate was 99.5% of expected and kept cost from roaring out of control..I'm sure there is such a program for the plane you operate.
 
Last edited:
It is dependent upon what aircraft we are talking about, many corporate aircraft do not fly under part 91 ops.

Corporate aircraft over 12,500 pounds operate on an approved maintenance program, which will dictate what the inspection cycle will be.
 
Tom-D said:
It is dependent upon what aircraft we are talking about, many corporate aircraft do not fly under part 91 ops.

Corporate aircraft over 12,500 pounds operate on an approved maintenance program, which will dictate what the inspection cycle will be.
Click to expand...


Most (~75%) are 91 ops, even over 12.5K#. They are NOT on FAA approved AAIP's (approved airplane inspection programs). They are on CAMP's and progressive programs approved by the OEM (not the FAA).


Most are phasing out the "phase inspections" for the MSG-3 type inspections, where the OEM board along with operators sit and talk about what needs to be done and which items need to be grouped and how often they need to be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that "most" is an accurate description, but some fall into the category. Many of the legacy airplanes are not being converted.

bnt83 said:
Most (~75%) are 91 ops, even over 12.5K#. They are NOT on FAA approved AAIP's (approved airplane inspection programs). They are on CAMP's and progressive programs approved by the OEM (not the FAA).


Most are phasing out the "phase inspections" for the MSG-3 type inspections, where the OEM board along with operators sit and talk about what needs to be done and which items need to be grouped and how often they need to be accomplished.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Not sure that "most" is an accurate description, but some fall into the category. Many of the legacy airplanes are not being converted.
Click to expand...


Many is probably a more accurate word.
 
bnt83 said:
Most (~75%) are 91 ops, even over 12.5K#. They are NOT on FAA approved AAIP's (approved airplane inspection programs). They are on CAMP's and progressive programs approved by the OEM (not the FAA).


Most are phasing out the "phase inspections" for the MSG-3 type inspections, where the OEM board along with operators sit and talk about what needs to be done and which items need to be grouped and how often they need to be accomplished.
Click to expand...

Same o, same o, they don't get 100 hour inspections by the local A&P.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Discussions with our mechanic about creating Denton Flying Club brought up this same thought (and we're still working out our do we or don't we compliance with the applicable FAR).

His line of thinking is that the aircraft is being used/abused enough that conducting 100-hr style inspections would catch a key maintenance issue while it's small and easily fixed and before it's difficult, expensive, and grounds the plane for extended period.
Click to expand...

For a club aircraft, it may be worthwhile to put the plane on a progressive inspection scheme. Instead of 100hr and 'annual' inspections, you have 4 inspections that if performed within a 2 year timeframe count as 'annual'. The cumulative man-hours for the individual inspections are about the same as an annual, so the advantage is not that it is cheaper but that the downtime for each inspection is less than what a full annual would take. Quite a common setup with flight-school aircraft.
 
Tom-D said:
It is dependent upon what aircraft we are talking about, many corporate aircraft do not fly under part 91 ops.

Corporate aircraft over 12,500 pounds operate on an approved maintenance program, which will dictate what the inspection cycle will be.
Click to expand...
What regulation says that? True, some corporate aircraft are so big they have to operate under Part 125, but there are lots over 12,500 MGW to which Part 125 does not apply.
 
Ron Levy said:
What regulation says that? True, some corporate aircraft are so big they have to operate under Part 125, but there are lots over 12,500 MGW to which Part 125 does not apply.
Click to expand...

Lots of ways to get around a 100 hours requirement, as has already been pointed out.

A progressive inspection cycle is the most popular.

Next question,, can any A&P complete a annual on a twin turbine if they are not working with in a CRS?
 
At least four on this field do, which seems to be enough to handle the load.


Tom-D said:
Lots of ways to get around a 100 hours requirement, as has already been pointed out.

A progressive inspection cycle is the most popular.

Next question,, can any A&P complete a annual on a twin turbine if they are not working with in a CRS?
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
Lots of ways to get around a 100 hours requirement, as has already been pointed out.

A progressive inspection cycle is the most popular.

Next question,, can any A&P complete a annual on a twin turbine if they are not working with in a CRS?
Click to expand...

Total down time and maintenance costs dropped on our planes when we put them on progressive, I'm a believer.
 
Did you write your own? I used Cessna's program for 20+ years on a variety of planes before they stopped sponsoring it and agree with your conclusion.

Skylane81E said:
Total down time and maintenance costs dropped on our planes when we put them on progressive, I'm a believer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top