Welcome to GlobalAir.com | 888-236-4309 |    | Please Register or Login
Aviation Articles
Home Aircraft For Sale  | Aviation Directory  |  Airport Resource  |   Blog  | My Flight Department  | MaxTrax
Aviation Articles

When is the 100-Hour Inspection Due for Aircraft Used for Rental and Flight Instruction?

by Greg Reigel 27. August 2015 17:32
Share on Facebook

If you work for or operate an FBO or flight school that offers aircraft rental as well as flight instruction, whether Part 61 or 141, you know the timing for completing aircraft inspections can sometimes be confusing. Now, I'm not talking about the annual inspection that must be conducted on all aircraft every twelve 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 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." Thus, unless the aircraft is subject to a progressive inspection program, or is a large aircraft (to which 14 C.F.R. Part 125 is not applicable), turbojet multiengine aircraft, turbopropeller-powered multiengine aircraft, or turbine-powered rotorcraft which has selected an inspection program under Section 91.409(f), then that aircraft must receive an annual or 100-hour inspection if it is going to be used for flight instruction.

Keep in mind that the 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by up to 10 hours as long as that time accrues while the aircraft is enroute to reach a place where the inspection can be done. However, if that happens, the additional time used to fly to the facility performing the inspection must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time for the aircraft to be in service.

Now, in order to determine whether the 100-hour inspection is required for an aircraft that is used for both flight instruction and rental, and when that inspection is due, we need to look at how the aircraft is operated during a particular flight. And this is where some of the confusion occurs. If the flight is operated for the purposes of providing flight instruction, then the aircraft must have had an annual or 100-hour inspection within the preceding 100 hours of time in service. But if the aircraft is simply rented to a customer without a pilot or flight instructor, then the aircraft need not have had an annual or 100-hour inspection within the preceding 100 hours of time in service.

How does this apply in real-life? Here are some scenarios where the FBO or flight school uses an aircraft for both flight instruction and rental and how Section 91.409(b) may or may not apply to the example flights.

Example 1: A customer reserves an aircraft for rental only and anticipates flying 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 flight does not exceed 10 hours and a 100-hour 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 flight instruction. In fact, when the customer returns the aircraft does not need an annual or 100-hour inspection unless it is going to be used for flight instruction, or 12 calendar months have elapsed since the aircraft's last annual inspection.

Example 2: The FBO or flight school dispatches an aircraft on a local training flight with a flight instructor and student pilot that is anticipated to, and does last one hour. 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 flight.

Is this a violation of Section 91.409(b)? Yes, because the flight instructor and student pilot clearly intend to fly beyond the 100-hour limitation during their training flight. The 10-hour grace period does not apply because the aircraft was not being flown enroute to a location where the inspection will be performed. Rather, the aircraft was operated on a local training flight which does not benefit from the 10-hour grace period. As a result, Section 91.409(b) is violated after the first tenth of an hour during the training flight. If the FBO or flight school wants to continue to use the aircraft for flight instruction after this flight, 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 3: An aircraft is dispatched on a cross country training flight with a flight instructor and student pilot. The flight is anticipated to take 1.5 hours of flight time to the destination and also 1.5 hours of flight time on the return trip. When the flight departs, the aircraft has accumulated 97 hours of time in service since its last inspection. During the cross country flight, unexpected winds and ATC vectoring result in the trip taking a total of 3.1 hours flight time. Upon return, a 100-hour inspection of the aircraft is conducted.

This situation does not violate Section 91.409(b). Why? The flight instructor and student pilot did not intend to overfly the 100-hour limitation. Additionally, the 100-hour limitation was exceeded while the aircraft was enroute to a location where the required inspection will be performed (e.g. the original departure airport). When the aircraft returns, an annual or 100-hour inspection will be required before the aircraft may be used for flight instruction, and the next inspection after that must be performed before the next 99.9 hours of time in service in order to continue to use the aircraft for flight instruction.

Example 4: An FBO or flight school owns an aircraft that has accumulated 100-hours since its last inspection. Although the aircraft is used for flight instruction, an inspection cannot be performed within the next week. As a result, the aircraft's schedule is marked "for rental use only." During the next week the aircraft is rented to customers, without a flight instructor, who accumulate a total of 15 hours of flight time. Additionally, no flight instruction is performed with the aircraft during the week.

Similar to Example 1, this situation does not violate Section 91.409(b). The 100-hour inspection requirement does not apply to aircraft operated for rental purposes and the FBO or flight school is free to rent the aircraft to customers as long as it is not providing a flight instructor or pilot and the customer is not operating the aircraft for hire. However, before the aircraft is again used for flight instruction an annual or 100-hour inspection must be performed and the next inspection after that must be performed before the next 85 hours of time in service in order to continue to use the aircraft for flight instruction.

As you can see, in order to apply Section 91.409(b)'s 100-hour inspection limitation it is important to not only look at the purpose of a flight, but also the intention of the operator in conducting the flight. Further, as is the case with all areas of regulatory compliance, it is critical that you have documentation or other evidence to be able to prove the purpose and intention for the flight. Aircraft schedules and rental agreements should include the purpose of the flight (e.g. rental or flight instruction) as well as the intentions for the flight (e.g. local, cross country etc.). With an understanding of Section 91.409(b)'s limitations and documentation in hand, you will be able to prove that you properly performed your 100-hour inspections in compliance with the regulations.

Tags:

Greg Reigel | Maintenance

FAA Updates Its Compliance Philosophy: A Move in the Right Direction?

by Greg Reigel 4. August 2015 16:22
Share on Facebook

The FAA has issued Order 8000.373 effective June 26, 2015 to explain its current compliance philosophy. That is, as the FAA explains it, its "strategic safety oversight approach to meet the challenges of today's rapidly changing aerospace system." What does that mean? Well, as the regulator of the aviation and aerospace communities, the FAA is charged with establishing regulatory standards to ensure that operations in the National Airspace System are conducted safely. And as we all know, compliance with those regulatory standards is mandatory.

However, not only does the FAA expect us to comply with the regulations, but it also believes that we have "a duty to develop and use processes and procedures that will prevent deviation from regulatory standards." Thus, we are required to conduct ourselves in a way that not only complies with the regulations, but that will also ensure that deviations are prevented. Sounds great, until something (e.g. a deviation) happens. Then what? In the past, the result was typically unpleasant. But that may be changing.

According to the FAA's new philosophy, "[W]hen deviations from regulatory standards do occur, the FAA's goal is to use the most effective means to return an individual or entity that holds an FAA certificate, approval, authorization, permit or license to full compliance and to prevent recurrence." This appears to be a shift from the FAA's past compliance philosophy. At least from my perspective, in the past the FAA's response to violations has leaned heavily toward enforcement and punitive action (e.g. certificate suspensions and revocations). And that approach never made sense to me.

If we truly want to encourage compliance and ensure that a certificate holder is safe, why would we want that certificate holder to be sitting on the ramp and out of the system for 30-180 days or longer with a suspended certificate? Wouldn't it make more sense to educate certificate holders and do what may be necessary to get them back into compliance and in a position where future compliance is more likely?

The FAA's current policy appears to be a step in this direction, at least on paper. The Order explains that

The FAA recognizes that some deviations arise from factors such as flawed procedures, simple mistakes, lack of understanding, or diminished skills. The Agency believes that deviations of this nature can most effectively be corrected through root cause analysis and training, education or other appropriate improvements to procedures or training programs for regulated entities, which are documented and verified to ensure effectiveness.

Sounds to me like the FAA is talking about letters of correction with remedial training. I think that's a good thing. The Order also notes that "[M]atters involving competence or qualification of certificate, license or permit holders will be addressed with appropriate remedial measures, which might include retraining or enforcement." Here again, the concept of retraining rather than enforcement (which was typically revocation in cases involving alleged incompetence or lack of qualification) appears to more appropriately address the situation in a more positive and productive manner. Maybe not in all cases, but hopefully more cases than in the past.

Of course, this doesn't mean that certificate and civil penalty actions will go away. If a certificate holder fails or refuses to take steps to remediate deviations or is involved in repeated deviations then enforcement may result. That makes sense. Additionally, in those situations where a certificate holder's conduct was intentional or reckless, the FAA indicates that it will pursue "strong enforcement." Also not a surprise.

Although this appears to be a positive shift in the FAA's philosophy/national policy, the rubber really hits the runway with the inspectors at the FSDO level. Will this policy shift actually trickle down? I hope so. But only time will tell.

 

Tags: , ,

Greg Reigel

Keeping the FAA Happy When Registering an Aircraft Owned by an LLC

by Greg Reigel 6. July 2015 11:46
Share on Facebook

A Limited Liability Company ("LLC") provides personal liability protection to its owners, as well as the tax and management flexibility. Both of these advantages have resulted in the increased use of LLC's for aircraft ownership. However, in order for the FAA to accept an application for aircraft registration submitted by an LLC, the aircraft owner needs to comply with the registration requirements of 14 C.F.R. Part 47.

One of those requirements is that the LLC must meet the U.S. citizenship requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 47.3. One of the ways to prove to the FAA that the LLC does, in fact, satisfy those requirements is to submit a "Statement in Support of Registration by a Limited Liability Company" ("LLC statement"). Although this isn't the only way to prove citizenship to the FAA, it is one of the most common methods.

In the LLC statement, the LLC must identify its members and confirm whether each of its members is a U.S. citizen. However, if one of the members is another LLC, the FAA will require an additional LLC statement for that member LLC identifying its members and confirming that those members are also U.S. citizens. The idea is that the FAA wants to drill down to identify which of the individuals involved are U.S. citizens and then determine whether the LLC qualifies as a U.S. citizen under 14. C.F.R. § 47.2. If that second (or third, if necessary) LLC statement isn't filed, the FAA will not register the aircraft until it either receives the LLC statement(s) or it receives other proof (usually organizational documents for the LLC) showing the citizenship of the members.

When all of the LLC's individual or entity members are U.S. citizens, then the LLC will be considered a U.S. citizen. If all of the individuals or entity members are not U.S. citizens, in order for the LLC to be satisfy the citizenship requirement, 2/3 of its officers/managers satisfy U.S. citizenship AND whether 75% of the voting interest of the LLC is controlled by individuals or entities meeting U.S. citizenship requirements.

Another item on the LLC statement indicates whether the LLC is managed by its members or managers. Whatever answer is provided, that information needs to match the information provided by the LLC on the application for registration. For example, if the LLC statement indicates that the LLC is managed by its members, then the individual who signs the application for registration should indicate his or her title as "member" or "managing member." On the other hand, if the LLC statement indicates that the LLC is managed by managers, then the individual signing the application should indicate his or her title as "manager" or some variant that includes the word manager (e.g. chief manager, chief financial manager etc.). If the LLC statement and the application for registration do not match, the FAA will reject the application.

Additionally, although an LLC may also be managed by officers, if the individual signs the application for registration as an officer (e.g. president, vice-president, treasurer etc.) the LLC statement will not be sufficient for the FAA to determine whether that individual has the appropriate authority. In that case, the FAA will reject the application unless it also receives the LLC's operating agreement or some other documentation evidencing the officer's authority to sign on behalf of the LLC.

Applying for registration of an aircraft with the FAA on behalf of an LLC can be tricky. The aircraft owner(s) using an LLC to own an aircraft need to carefully dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" to ensure that the FAA will accept the LLC's application and register the aircraft. Understanding the LLC statement and the FAA's requirements can help you avoid some of the "gotcha's" that can cause problems for an aircraft owner trying to register an aircraft with the FAA using an LLC.

Tags: , , ,

Greg Reigel

May A Pilot Continue to Act as Pilot in Command Despite a Lapse in § 61.58 Currency?

by Greg Reigel 2. June 2015 17:42
Share on Facebook

If you fly an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered, you know that 14 C.F.R. § 61.58(a) requires that you have regular proficiency checks. Specifically, within the preceding 12 calendar months you need to have completed a proficiency check in an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered, and within the preceding 24 calendar months you must have completed a proficiency check in the particular type of aircraft in which you will serve as PIC that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered.

So, when do you actually need to complete each proficiency check? Well, if you complete the proficiency check in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month it is due, Section 61.58(i) states that "the pilot is considered to have taken it in the month in which it was due for the purpose of computing when the next pilot-in-command proficiency check is due." This means you have a "grace month" within which to complete the 12- and 24-month proficiency check requirements. But, are you permitted to continue to act as a PIC in an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered during the grace month after the proficiency check has lapsed?

The answer is "Yes." According to the FAA in a recent Legal Interpretation, a pilot may continue to act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered during the month after a Section 61.58 proficiency check is due. But keep in mind that when a pilot completes a Section 61.58 proficiency check during the grace month (either before or after the proficiency check is due) he or she is considered to have completed the proficiency check during the month it was due for the purpose of calculating the due date for the next Section 61.58 proficiency check.

Also, pilots and operators shouldn't use the grace month as a way to regularly extend a 12-month proficiency check to a 13-month proficiency check. However, this interpretation is certainly helpful to those pilots who are unable to complete their recurrent training/proficiency check requirements in the month in which they are due.

Tags: , ,

Greg Reigel

More Safety Pilot Questions Answered

by Greg Reigel 30. April 2015 15:00
Share on Facebook

This month I thought I would answer some of the questions I routinely hear in connection with operations involving safety pilots, other than questions relating to how to log safety pilot time which was discussed in my January article Logging Safety Pilot Time.


Does a safety pilot need a current medical certificate? Yes. Section 91.109(b) requires a safety pilot for operations in simulated instrument conditions. And since 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(c) requires a person to hold a valid medical certificate in order to act in any capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, a safety pilot must therefore hold a current, appropriate airman medical certificate.


Does a safety pilot need an instrument rating? No, an airman acting as a safety pilot under Section 91.109(b) does not need an instrument rating as long as the flight is being conducted in visual meteorological conditions. Additionally, an airman who possesses an instrument rating does not need to be instrument current under 14 C.F.R. § 61.57(c)(1) in order to act as a safety pilot because that section only applies to an airman acting as pilot in command, not an airman acting as a safety pilot.


Does a safety pilot need a high-performance endorsement prior to acting as safety pilot in a high-performance aircraft? Currently the regulations do not require a safety pilot to have a high-performance endorsement when acting as a safety pilot in a high-performance aircraft. However, the FAA does encourage those airman who act as safety pilots to be thoroughly familiar and current in the aircraft that is used. Presumably this would include operation of the components that make the aircraft a high-performance aircraft.


Does a safety pilot need a current flight review? No. The requirement in 14 C.F.R. §61.56(c) that a flight review be accomplished within the preceding 24 months only applies to airmen who act as pilot in command. As along as the safety pilot is not acting as pilot in command for any portion of the flight then he or she does not need a current flight review.


May a safety pilot log cross country time for a flight? A pilot only acts as a safety pilot during the time in which the other pilot is engaged in simulated instrument flight (e.g. wearing a view limiting device). Since simulated instrument flight does not include take-off and landing, a safety pilot is not a required crewmember during that portion of the flight. As a result, the safety pilot is not acting as a safety pilot for the entire flight and, thus, may not log cross country time for any portion of the flight.


Is a safety pilot a "second in command" for the flight? It is not uncommon for airmen to refer to their safety pilot as being "second in command." However, unless the aircraft being used is type certificated for operation by more than one pilot or the operation conducted by the pilots requires a designated second in command (e.g. an operation conducted under 14 C.F.R. 135.101 which requires a second in command for IFR operations), the designation of a safety pilot as an acting second in command crewmember is not accurate.


Under the regulations, an airman may "log" SIC time for the portion of the flight during which he or she was "acting" or "serving" as safety pilot because the safety pilot was a required flight crewmember for that portion of the flight under 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(b). In that situation, assuming neither the aircraft nor the operation requires two pilots, the airman is only "acting" or "serving" as a safety pilot, not as second in command for the flight.


Is a safety pilot required to share expenses with a private pilot for a simulated instrument flight? 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(c) provides that a private pilot may not pay less than his or her pro-rata share of the expenses of a flight with passengers. However, under Section 91.109(b), both the private pilot and the safety pilot are required crewmembers for the simulated instrument flight and neither is considered a passenger for the flight. As a result, assuming the only individuals on board the aircraft for the simulated instrument flight are the private pilot and the safety pilot, then Section 61.113(c)'s pro-rata expense sharing requirement does not apply to that flight.

As always, fly safe and fly smart.

Tags:

aircraft instruments, IFR, IMC, safety | Greg Reigel





GlobalAir.com on Twitter