100 Hour Inspection

[slick1537]

I have a theoretical for you. Jim the newly minted commercial pilot decides he is going to open up a aerial photography business. Jim covers the cost of the aircraft, his friend takes the photos, and they split the profits. Are 100 hour inspections required for the aircraft?

 

My opinion is they are not required. 91.409b states they are required when an aircraft is carrying someone for hire, or for flight instruction in which the instructor provides the aircraft. In this case no one has paid to fly in the aircraft, and the pilot is paying for the expenses.

 

What do you think?

[rotorrodent]

I have a theoretical for you. Jim the newly minted commercial pilot decides he is going to open up a aerial photography business. Jim covers the cost of the aircraft, his friend takes the photos, and they split the profits. Are 100 hour inspections required for the aircraft?

 

My opinion is they are not required. 91.409b states they are required when an aircraft is carrying someone for hire, or for flight instruction in which the instructor provides the aircraft. In this case no one has paid to fly in the aircraft, and the pilot is paying for the expenses.

 

What do you think?

 

Does Jim need a standby pilot? I'll go!

 

Rotorrodent

[Inferno]

I'l try and do my best to answer this, although others might do a better job.

 

It's very difficult to figure out exactly what is what in this case. An argument can be made that you are flying under your private license, where you are taking your friend up while he takes photos. He is not paying for flight time, etc....

 

It can also be argued that it is commercial, in that you are making money from doing these flights.

 

Personally, I would just log it under 91. Sure, it sucks paying for the 100 hour, but to me, it is worth every penny for that extra little bit of security.

 

If you really are curious, call a FSDO. it doesn't even have to be your local one if you like anonymity and ask. They would be more than happy to let you know what the FAA thinks.

[r22butters]

I have a feeling, anyone auditing your logbook would consider it "for hire", so better to play it safe, and besides, some helicopters require the 100hr whether its for Private or Commercial use, i.e. Robinsons.

[apiaguy]

100hr is required. "Jim" opened a aerial photo business. Anybody he takes with him is going to be the person mentioned in 91.409(.

Of course you could do photo flights as a private pilot with your buddy.... just don't expect to get any compensation. That would be more grey.

 

How would anyone "audit" your logbook to know it was "for hire"?

[slick1537]

I have never heard where Robinsons require a 100 hour inspection if they are used for personal pleasure flying. Could you give a source?

[R22139RJ]

I have never heard where Robinsons require a 100 hour inspection if they are used for personal pleasure flying. Could you give a source?

 

I don't have my FAR/AIM next to me, so I can't quote the regs, but it is my understanding that a private owner does not need 100 hour inspections.

[apiaguy]

It is not a FAA requirement..... robinson service manual requirement... I would always recommend 100 hr. service/inspections even if private operation.

[R22139RJ]

It is not a FAA requirement..... robinson service manual requirement... I would always recommend 100 hr. service/inspections even if private operation.

 

Good to know. I have never had my grubbies on a Service Manual but apparently i need to read my POH better. 8-2.

[delorean]

And your insurance company most likely requires that you operate and maintain the aircraft I/A/W the manufacturer's POH/RFM, maintenance manual, and comply with any and all ADs, SBs, etc.

 

So, if you skip a 100hr and you bang it up after an engine or other failure, it's going to be much harder getting money out of the insurance company or manufacturer since you did not follow their recommendations (even though you are not legally required to.)

 

BTW, the scenario is a commercial operation. Even if the guy paid less than half, the feds will say you were compensated by paying half the expense, but logging all the time (time building 50% off.) If he's your buddy, it would be harder for them to prove that. Best thing to do, do this as a favor to him, then he owes you a couple hundred dollar favor next time. Keep money out of the conversations and it's not a commercial flight.

[azbirdman]

We're the FAA; we're here to help! If you ask a FSDO, use yours (where you will fly).

They are the admiinistrator of that region, and they decide what they will allow, grey or not

to a layperson. Ask anyone without 135 in Arizona... Be safe: don't interpret, just ask the man.

[Limefly]

On 10/23/2009 at 6:25 PM, slick1537 said:

I have never heard where Robinsons require a 100 hour inspection if they are used for personal pleasure flying. Could you give a source?

Simple,

look in the Robinson RFM/POH and Maintenance manual. It’s says right there it is required to have 100 hour inspection. If that doesn’t convince you call Robinson. It’s their aircraft certification. 

[iChris]

On 5/18/2023 at 9:25 AM, Limefly said:

Simple,

look in the Robinson RFM/POH and Maintenance manual. It’s says right there it is required to have 100 hour inspection. If that doesn’t convince you call Robinson. It’s their aircraft certification. 

The sections containing the language you refer to, are not considered mandatory and are not binding on the operator or owner of the aircraft to maintain airworthiness. The 100-hour inspection is not included in the Airworthiness Section 3.300, Part 91, or Part 43 for non-commercial operations.

Some OEMs have placed mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” and “will” that imply that compliance is mandatory. However, in the absence of regulatory language, or an AD that makes such notes mandatory, compliance with such notes is not mandatory.” The R22/44 maintenance manual Airworthiness Limitations Section 3.300 are FAA approved and sets forth each mandatory (must do) replacement times, structural inspection intervals, and related structural inspections. 

As long as the owner complies with section 3.300 in the R22/R44 maintenance manual, the aircraft and engine can be maintained under FAR 91.409, 43.15, 43.16, and Appendix D to Part 43 in an airworthy condition. To fully understand read the 2011 posts “R22 Airworthiness past 2200 hrs.” and the supporting documentation.  https://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/15056-r22-airworthiness-past-2200-hrs/

“As a general proposition, manufacturer's maintenance manuals, service bulletins, and inspection programs (with limited exceptions not pertinent here) are not FAA-approved and are not mandatory; nor are subsequently issued changes to maintenance manuals or inspection programs. If they were, and compliance were required, this would be tantamount to private entities issuing "rules" of general applicability without meeting the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),”

“As with the requirements for FAA-approved operating limitations in an AFM, Appendix G requires that the Airworthiness Limitations section be segregated and clearly distinguishable from the rest of the document. The section must set forth each mandatory replacement time, structural inspection interval, and related structural inspection procedure. It must contain a separate statement in a prominent location that reads: "The Airworthiness Limitation section is FAA approved and specifies maintenance required under§§ 43.16 and 91.403 unless an alternative program has been FAA approved." 

 "An interpretation of the regulations that would allow manufacturers unilaterally to mandate inspection intervals and replacement times that would have future effect on owners of their products would not be legally correct. This would run afoul of the APA. It would mean that our regulations effectively authorize manufacturers to issue "substantive rules," as that term is used in the APA, i.e., it would enable them to impose legal requirements on the public. This would be objectionable for at least two reasons. First, and most significantly, the FAA does not have authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to manufacturers. Second, "substantive rules" can be adopted only in accordance with the notice-and-comment procedures of the APA, which does not apply to manufacturers." 

 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/faa_migrate/interps/2011/MacMillan_2011_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8620.2B.pdf

Edited June 9, 2023 by iChris