Narrative:

I am a pilot with company X flying on an EMS contract at the trauma center in XXX. On oct/xx/89, trauma center was asked to participate in ZZZ disaster drill. Trauma center provided two helicopters. I was flying a and the other pilot was flying B. We thought it would look good to show up in formation and depart at the end of the exercise in formation. We are both army reserve pilots and did not think there was anything wrong with flying in formation to and from the drill site. We are both proud of the job we do for company and trauma center and did not think that there was anything wrong with it. Approximately 3 to 4 days later, we were informed that this flight violated far 91.65(C) reference carrying passenger for hire while performing formation flight. We, myself and the other pilot, felt we had complied with regulations. We had briefed the conduct of the flight prior to departure. We were in continuous radio contact, calling out all turns, climb, descent, etc. Contributing factors - I would list the following items as contributing factors: 1) ignorance of far 91.65(C), 2) some confusion over when we are flying for hire and when not, 3) enthusiasm for our job - wanting to look good. Reference #2 - confusion over when flying for hire. We only flew the formation flight with our (EMS crew) crew on board. We did not fly formation while any drill passenger were on board. It has been the pilot's understanding that company provides trauma center with 4 to 6 hours of flight time to perform training and marketing flts each month. This drill was billed as a marketing flight. I assumed that these flts are considered far part 91 flts. Others in the company disagree. How it was discovered: someone else in company brought it to our attention that the flight may have violated far 91.65(C).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWO EMS HELICOPTERS PARTICIPATED IS DISASTER DRILL, FLEW TO AND FROM THE DRILL IN FORMATION. COMPANY CLAIMS THEY VIOLATED FEDERAL AVIATION REG 91 PT 65.

Narrative: I AM A PLT WITH COMPANY X FLYING ON AN EMS CONTRACT AT THE TRAUMA CENTER IN XXX. ON OCT/XX/89, TRAUMA CENTER WAS ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN ZZZ DISASTER DRILL. TRAUMA CENTER PROVIDED TWO HELICOPTERS. I WAS FLYING A AND THE OTHER PLT WAS FLYING B. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD LOOK GOOD TO SHOW UP IN FORMATION AND DEPART AT THE END OF THE EXERCISE IN FORMATION. WE ARE BOTH ARMY RESERVE PLTS AND DID NOT THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH FLYING IN FORMATION TO AND FROM THE DRILL SITE. WE ARE BOTH PROUD OF THE JOB WE DO FOR COMPANY AND TRAUMA CENTER AND DID NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT. APPROX 3 TO 4 DAYS LATER, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THIS FLT VIOLATED FAR 91.65(C) REF CARRYING PAX FOR HIRE WHILE PERFORMING FORMATION FLT. WE, MYSELF AND THE OTHER PLT, FELT WE HAD COMPLIED WITH REGS. WE HAD BRIEFED THE CONDUCT OF THE FLT PRIOR TO DEP. WE WERE IN CONTINUOUS RADIO CONTACT, CALLING OUT ALL TURNS, CLIMB, DSCNT, ETC. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS - I WOULD LIST THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) IGNORANCE OF FAR 91.65(C), 2) SOME CONFUSION OVER WHEN WE ARE FLYING FOR HIRE AND WHEN NOT, 3) ENTHUSIASM FOR OUR JOB - WANTING TO LOOK GOOD. REF #2 - CONFUSION OVER WHEN FLYING FOR HIRE. WE ONLY FLEW THE FORMATION FLT WITH OUR (EMS CREW) CREW ON BOARD. WE DID NOT FLY FORMATION WHILE ANY DRILL PAX WERE ON BOARD. IT HAS BEEN THE PLT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT COMPANY PROVIDES TRAUMA CENTER WITH 4 TO 6 HRS OF FLT TIME TO PERFORM TRAINING AND MARKETING FLTS EACH MONTH. THIS DRILL WAS BILLED AS A MARKETING FLT. I ASSUMED THAT THESE FLTS ARE CONSIDERED FAR PART 91 FLTS. OTHERS IN THE COMPANY DISAGREE. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: SOMEONE ELSE IN COMPANY BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTN THAT THE FLT MAY HAVE VIOLATED FAR 91.65(C).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.