Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:38 pm
by drseti
3Dreaming wrote:Paul, can you provide the regulation number for those items I highlighted?
Tom, there's been a lot of discussion about this on the LSRM LinkedIn group that Carol Carpenter (Rainbow Aviation) moderates. Here's part of the answer (I need to research the rest):
FAR 91.327 (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless --
(4) The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition.
There was apparently a Letter of Interpretation from FAA Legal that opined "safety directive" includes manufacturer's service bulletins. Note also that it's a little worse than I thought -- this reg applies to
all LSAs, not just those in commercial service.
I'll post the 100 hour inspection and TBO rules when I have time to research the references.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:59 pm
by drseti
KSCessnaDriver wrote:the 100 hour inspection is only required for instruction, not rental.
Despite DPEs requiring one on rental aircraft used for checkrides (see my earlier post), the regs do indeed seem to agree with this. FAR 91.327 (c) (1), which lists the 100 hour inspection requirement, specifically states glider and unpowered ultralight towing and flight instruction for compensation or hire. It does
not list rental. Good catch, CessnaDriver!
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:23 pm
by drseti
Regarding TBOs -- this is getting interesting. Rotax had long maintained that they are mandatory. Last month, FAA Legal issued a dissenting opinion:
Although manufacturers may reference regulatory requirements in their maintenance manuals, they may not impose additional requirements on mechanics or repairmen that are not contained in the regulations
Then Rotax fired a counter-salvo. As reported by Carol Carpenter on the LSRM LinkedIn forum:
Of course Rotax strongly opposes this interpretation. Eric Tucker is beginning discussions on the matter and sent me the following statement:
Going over the TBO would indeed be a safety thing for me and for the folks at Rotax. Because many have chosen to be completely anal about this I will get Rotax to make a directive that calls our statements “mandatory”, as it refers to our bulletins published, an equivalent word for “safety” when used in our directives. In checking with our legal council they believe that will solve our legal issues when it gets challenged in court. Then the FAA can defend its position along with the repairman for not complying to our “mandatory” directives.
So, it looks as though it will take legal action to resolve the question. Meanwhile (just in case Rotax prevails in court), I'm going to keep treating the 2000 hour TBO as mandatory...
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:55 am
by 3Dreaming
Paul, I guess because this is Sport Pilot Talk I should put on my blinders to the rest of the aviation world, but that is where my response came from. Your replies are only for SLSA aircraft, and there are many others out there. Tom
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:08 am
by drseti
3Dreaming wrote:Your replies are only for SLSA aircraft
Correct. Different categories, different rules. I realize you fly certified aircraft, so I should have qualified my response.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:15 am
by KSCessnaDriver
drseti wrote:Not sure that's correct. When my students rent a plane to fly their checkride, the DPE has them show the logbooks, to determine that the plane is in 100 hr. If not, he won't fly the checkride with them! (and the student is only renting the plane; a checkride does not constitute instruction.)
I would have used 91.409(b) as the regulation that doesn't require it.
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, 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 and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:18 am
by KSCessnaDriver
drseti wrote:So, it looks as though it will take legal action to resolve the question. Meanwhile (just in case Rotax prevails in court), I'm going to keep treating the 2000 hour TBO as mandatory...
I don't know why Rotax makes such a big deal out of this. We have an aircraft powered by 2 912F3's at my place of employment, and we ran one beyond TBO because we didn't have a new one to put on. It got overhauled no problems, AFAIK.
moving thread
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:13 pm
by drseti
Moving this thread to the FARs forum.
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:32 pm
by jnmeade
drseti wrote:Here's another wrinkle. As a CFI, I am allowed limited commercial operation of an LSA -- that is, flight instruction for hire, and rental at the prevailing market rate. Why don't you become a flight instructor? That way, when you take your buddy fishing, you can be providing instruction, and charge whatever you want! (Of course, your plane then needs to be insured for commercial operation, and is subject to 100 hour inspections, and mandatory compliance with Service Bulletins and TBO recommendations -- so you might end up spending more than you take in. Which, generally, is the nature of all aviation businesses...)
You have to be very, very careful of doing this. Generally, if the function of the alleged training is to get the student to a desired place, the FAA sees this as a pseudo 135 charter.
You can't go to a flight school, pretend to be a student, get a CFI to fly you to a site where you have a non-training reason to go under the guise of training and expect to get away with it if questioned. The CFI will get violated.
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:44 pm
by drseti
It's true that you'd have to provide actual, meaningful instruction as the primary purpose of the flight. I'm assuming your buddy would desire this, or why would you consider him your buddy?
