When a 100-Hour Inspection is not required for FBO Training Aircraft

That is the way I understood the regulation.
 
It would make sense to me, if only there were FBOs that don't screen their instructors. At least in the context of primary training, it seems truly foolish to rent an aircraft without any checked-out PIC.

I've certainly never run across an FBO that allows instruction with any joe blow instructor they've never even heard of, but those are the conditions of the letter given.

Sounds like trading a regulation problem for an insurance problem.
 
MAKG1 said:
It would make sense to me, if only there were FBOs that don't screen their instructors. At least in the context of primary training, it seems truly foolish to rent an aircraft without any checked-out PIC.

I've certainly never run across an FBO that allows instruction with any joe blow instructor they've never even heard of, but those are the conditions of the letter given.

Sounds like trading a regulation problem for an insurance problem.
Click to expand...
I think you are right about the insurance issue. Insurance may require a checked out instructor as instructor.
 
So there is a way to rent and have instruction so you don't have to have 100 hour inspections? And it involves obscure and possibly unknown rules about how the instructor is picked? And if the instructor isn't picked right, then you are in violation of not having 100 hours? Sounds like a lot of unknowns. One thing, if 100 hours make instruction safer, don't you want them either way? If 100 hours dont make the instruction safer, why require them at all?
 
I've run into a situation where I, as an instructor, gave dual to my student in an airplane he rented from another FBO to whom I was an unknown.

I had permission to check my student out in their 150 prior to his check ride because our 152 ran into a major maintenance issue the day before.
 
This is where an official instructor guild might actually come in handy - like SAFE or NAFI - if they could convince insurance companies to give their "vetted" instructors across the board privileges. Of course then if you knew you were jumping into a ragged out Cessna 150 that hadn't had any attention in 200 hours there might be some other concerns.
 
Who gets their hand slapped when they figure out there is more to the instructor/FBO relationship? FBO? Instructor? PP Instrument student that rented the plane?
 
..., the CFI must pass a "check-out ride" with one of the FBO's authorized Chief Pilots (for quality assurance purposes to ensure that all renters are current, proficient, and ...
Click to expand...
What about the Chief Pilots? They now have a connection to the FBO that would now require the 100 hour just for the check-out flights?
 
Last edited:
Let's get one thing straight, insurance has nothing to do with the FAA's regulation.

The CFI can be one of those who are approved to instruct in the FBO's aircraft. as long as the FBO is not providing the CFI along with the aircraft you are good to go with no 100 hour inspection.
 
amster105 said:
What about the Chief Pilots? They now have a connection to the FBO that would now require the 100 hour just for the check-out flights?
Click to expand...
That is an FBO rule, not one from the FAA.
 
Not to detract from the point of the thread, but was there a discussion about how imposing or expensive the 100-hour inspection is?
(I am not seeing the reason for all the effort to avoid them)
Thanks for indulging the side-commenters.
 
A 100-hour is the same scope as an annual inspection. It can be performed by any A&P, unlike the annual which must be signed off by one with an IA. Of course, if an IA performs the inspection, he can sign it off as an annual if he wishes. Our club did this.
 
My schools instructors do not work for me, they have been checked out in the aircraft, I do provide them in list format on our website. If someone calls me wanting to learn how to fly I give them the contact information for one of the instructors. The student pays our company for the airplane. The instructor charges whatever rate they'd like and they bill the student directly.

However I won't let just any instructor instruct in our aircraft. I've never had one come to me that I've said no to however I want to reserve that right. As a result, we do 100 hours, and the way I interpret this is that I still should.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Not to detract from the point of the thread, but was there a discussion about how imposing or expensive the 100-hour inspection is?
(I am not seeing the reason for all the effort to avoid them)
Thanks for indulging the side-commenters.
Click to expand...
Probably more a case of the FBO trying to avoid the costs associated with employing instructors. But if they don't have to provide instructors, they may as well not spend the money on non-required inspections.
 
coloradobluesky said:
So there is a way to rent and have instruction so you don't have to have 100 hour inspections? And it involves obscure and possibly unknown rules about how the instructor is picked? And if the instructor isn't picked right, then you are in violation of not having 100 hours?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you mean by "you."

"You," the FBO, are taking a regulatory risk of civil penalties if you are wrong.
"You," the CFI, are taking a regulatory risk of certificate action (and maybe civil penalties) if you are wrong. Biggest practical risk is probably to the CFI..
"You," the student, aren't taking any regulatory risk.

The rules are't particularly unknown or obscure (although I guess any rule I don't know is "unknown" at least to me ;)) The real problem is applying the rules to the specific situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top