Narrative:

I received a phone call from a friend asking me to cover a pilot service trip for him. First, I asked the details of the trip and information on the people involved. He informed me that he had flown for the people before on a leased aircraft, which was managed by a management company representing the individual who leased the aircraft. Further, he had asked a rep of the FAA about the situation and found that there was no reason to believe there was anything illegal about flying the trips, so I agreed to take the trip as a favor to him with the understanding he would pick up the trip down the road if he could get me home. There was to be 2 aircraft, both same model light transport, leaving M33 going to mbs, then on to san. I arrived at M33, where I met the pilot of the other aircraft, who represented himself as the pilot for the person leasing the aircraft. After a few mins, my friend arrived in the aircraft I was to fly, so my copilot and I went to that aircraft. As we were walking, the company pilot told me we needed to stop in pontiac where we could get cheap fuel on the way to mbs. After being satisfied that the paperwork was in order, we strapped in and started the aircraft. After starting my friend pointed out that the left windshield heat had been intermittent. By the time my friend had checked me and my copilot out, and I had reviewed the aircraft systems, procedures and figured the weight and balance for the 4 legs I had planned to san with my copilot, approximately 2 hours had passed. My copilot then obtained a clearance over the phone after some confusion, because I had previously filed to mbs and the company pilot had filed a flight plan for the same aircraft to pontiac. We got in the aircraft and started both engines when I noticed that both gens were operating, but not sharing the same load, so I shut down the engines, got the aircraft manual out and reviewed the dc generating system. While reviewing manual, received phone call from pontiac from company pilot and I explained gen situation. He suggested I try starting aircraft again, this time starting opp engine first. Went to aircraft and checked all applicable breakers that were suggested in manual and restarted aircraft. Load shared between the gens now appeared close to the prescribed 10% allowed by the manual, which gave no explanation for anything above 10%. Copilot and I took off after a thorough check, indicating everything was working. After takeoff and climb, noted an intermittent problem with the microphone jack on copilot's side. Upon leveling off at FL390, noted copilot's altimeter reading approximately 200' too high. Headed directly to mbs instead of stopping in pontiac. Arriving mbs, shot an ILS (VFR) to ensure the localizer/GS were functioning properly. While aircraft was fueled discussed aircraft with company pilot. Company pilot and passenger were upset because we were late. Got into heated discussion with company pilot and told him I felt my aircraft was unsafe to fly into heavy IFR WX. He disagreed. He said he'd have a mechanic check aircraft upon arrival in san. I then agreed to continue to san as long as I could determine VFR route. I checked for correct charts and proceeded toward wichita. Other pilot went to discrete frequency and asked if I could go to tul or okc instead of ict because of fuel prices. Decided tul would be ok (okc too far to keep fuel reserves). Received clearance to proceed to tul. Upon arrival at tul, company pilot and someone else (his boss, I presume) were angry with me. After they chewed me out for taking too long, I said, 'look, I don't know what the deal is with you 2 guys, but as captain of this aircraft, I am going to make sure everything is done safely, or I won't do it at all.' then said I was proceeding to abq, then san. Other pilot elected to go to san nonstop. 150 mi out of san, difference between gens spread out of prescribed limits. As we flew over mountains, DME became intermittent. Upon descent into san, told copilot to check radios. He found radar altimeter and marker beacons had become inoperative (they'd been operable previously). We were so busy checking everything, I passed through assigned altitude, but returned within 15-20 seconds. Upon landing, left thrust reverser failed, but we stopped west/O problems. Told company pilot that aircraft should not be flown again until checked by mechanics. Left him there and returned home. I may have become involved in an illegal atx operation, and there may have been other far violations re: my flts. After reviewing the far's, this is still a grey area to me. A simplified approach in regards to the difference between pilot services, atx operations and the leasing of aircraft should be addressed in regulations. Also, in checking aircraft manual, found it difficult to determine if a discrepancy shown by an INS or piece of equipment would be worthy of cancelling flight. A revamping of aircraft manuals providing more information along the lines that are found in flight schools such as flight safety would be very helpful in situations such as these I've described. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states that he contacted his 'friend' after return. Friend said he too was concerned about the operation and whether things were according to regulations with a third party involved. Would the operation then fall under part 135? Since reporter felt he was under part 91, was he illegal? Felt things were very shady and regulations are not explicit. Friend's contact with FAA apparently has them investigating the operation. Reporter does not know if he will be involved in the investigation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER OPERATING WITH LEASE ACFT FEELS POOR MAINTENANCE OF ACFT AND POOR PROCS WITHIN THE OPERATION.

Narrative: I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A FRIEND ASKING ME TO COVER A PLT SVC TRIP FOR HIM. FIRST, I ASKED THE DETAILS OF THE TRIP AND INFO ON THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD FLOWN FOR THE PEOPLE BEFORE ON A LEASED ACFT, WHICH WAS MANAGED BY A MGMNT COMPANY REPRESENTING THE INDIVIDUAL WHO LEASED THE ACFT. FURTHER, HE HAD ASKED A REP OF THE FAA ABOUT THE SITUATION AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT FLYING THE TRIPS, SO I AGREED TO TAKE THE TRIP AS A FAVOR TO HIM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING HE WOULD PICK UP THE TRIP DOWN THE ROAD IF HE COULD GET ME HOME. THERE WAS TO BE 2 ACFT, BOTH SAME MODEL LTT, LEAVING M33 GOING TO MBS, THEN ON TO SAN. I ARRIVED AT M33, WHERE I MET THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT, WHO REPRESENTED HIMSELF AS THE PLT FOR THE PERSON LEASING THE ACFT. AFTER A FEW MINS, MY FRIEND ARRIVED IN THE ACFT I WAS TO FLY, SO MY COPLT AND I WENT TO THAT ACFT. AS WE WERE WALKING, THE COMPANY PLT TOLD ME WE NEEDED TO STOP IN PONTIAC WHERE WE COULD GET CHEAP FUEL ON THE WAY TO MBS. AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT THE PAPERWORK WAS IN ORDER, WE STRAPPED IN AND STARTED THE ACFT. AFTER STARTING MY FRIEND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEFT WINDSHIELD HEAT HAD BEEN INTERMITTENT. BY THE TIME MY FRIEND HAD CHKED ME AND MY COPLT OUT, AND I HAD REVIEWED THE ACFT SYSTEMS, PROCS AND FIGURED THE WT AND BAL FOR THE 4 LEGS I HAD PLANNED TO SAN WITH MY COPLT, APPROX 2 HRS HAD PASSED. MY COPLT THEN OBTAINED A CLRNC OVER THE PHONE AFTER SOME CONFUSION, BECAUSE I HAD PREVIOUSLY FILED TO MBS AND THE COMPANY PLT HAD FILED A FLT PLAN FOR THE SAME ACFT TO PONTIAC. WE GOT IN THE ACFT AND STARTED BOTH ENGS WHEN I NOTICED THAT BOTH GENS WERE OPERATING, BUT NOT SHARING THE SAME LOAD, SO I SHUT DOWN THE ENGS, GOT THE ACFT MANUAL OUT AND REVIEWED THE DC GENERATING SYS. WHILE REVIEWING MANUAL, RECEIVED PHONE CALL FROM PONTIAC FROM COMPANY PLT AND I EXPLAINED GEN SITUATION. HE SUGGESTED I TRY STARTING ACFT AGAIN, THIS TIME STARTING OPP ENG FIRST. WENT TO ACFT AND CHKED ALL APPLICABLE BREAKERS THAT WERE SUGGESTED IN MANUAL AND RESTARTED ACFT. LOAD SHARED BTWN THE GENS NOW APPEARED CLOSE TO THE PRESCRIBED 10% ALLOWED BY THE MANUAL, WHICH GAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR ANYTHING ABOVE 10%. COPLT AND I TOOK OFF AFTER A THOROUGH CHK, INDICATING EVERYTHING WAS WORKING. AFTER TKOF AND CLB, NOTED AN INTERMITTENT PROB WITH THE MIC JACK ON COPLT'S SIDE. UPON LEVELING OFF AT FL390, NOTED COPLT'S ALTIMETER READING APPROX 200' TOO HIGH. HEADED DIRECTLY TO MBS INSTEAD OF STOPPING IN PONTIAC. ARRIVING MBS, SHOT AN ILS (VFR) TO ENSURE THE LOC/GS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. WHILE ACFT WAS FUELED DISCUSSED ACFT WITH COMPANY PLT. COMPANY PLT AND PAX WERE UPSET BECAUSE WE WERE LATE. GOT INTO HEATED DISCUSSION WITH COMPANY PLT AND TOLD HIM I FELT MY ACFT WAS UNSAFE TO FLY INTO HEAVY IFR WX. HE DISAGREED. HE SAID HE'D HAVE A MECH CHK ACFT UPON ARR IN SAN. I THEN AGREED TO CONTINUE TO SAN AS LONG AS I COULD DETERMINE VFR RTE. I CHKED FOR CORRECT CHARTS AND PROCEEDED TOWARD WICHITA. OTHER PLT WENT TO DISCRETE FREQ AND ASKED IF I COULD GO TO TUL OR OKC INSTEAD OF ICT BECAUSE OF FUEL PRICES. DECIDED TUL WOULD BE OK (OKC TOO FAR TO KEEP FUEL RESERVES). RECEIVED CLRNC TO PROCEED TO TUL. UPON ARR AT TUL, COMPANY PLT AND SOMEONE ELSE (HIS BOSS, I PRESUME) WERE ANGRY WITH ME. AFTER THEY CHEWED ME OUT FOR TAKING TOO LONG, I SAID, 'LOOK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEAL IS WITH YOU 2 GUYS, BUT AS CAPT OF THIS ACFT, I AM GOING TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE SAFELY, OR I WON'T DO IT AT ALL.' THEN SAID I WAS PROCEEDING TO ABQ, THEN SAN. OTHER PLT ELECTED TO GO TO SAN NONSTOP. 150 MI OUT OF SAN, DIFFERENCE BTWN GENS SPREAD OUT OF PRESCRIBED LIMITS. AS WE FLEW OVER MOUNTAINS, DME BECAME INTERMITTENT. UPON DSNT INTO SAN, TOLD COPLT TO CHK RADIOS. HE FOUND RADAR ALTIMETER AND MARKER BEACONS HAD BECOME INOP (THEY'D BEEN OPERABLE PREVIOUSLY). WE WERE SO BUSY CHKING EVERYTHING, I PASSED THROUGH ASSIGNED ALT, BUT RETURNED WITHIN 15-20 SECS. UPON LNDG, LEFT THRUST REVERSER FAILED, BUT WE STOPPED W/O PROBS. TOLD COMPANY PLT THAT ACFT SHOULD NOT BE FLOWN AGAIN UNTIL CHKED BY MECHS. LEFT HIM THERE AND RETURNED HOME. I MAY HAVE BECOME INVOLVED IN AN ILLEGAL ATX OPERATION, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER FAR VIOLATIONS RE: MY FLTS. AFTER REVIEWING THE FAR'S, THIS IS STILL A GREY AREA TO ME. A SIMPLIFIED APCH IN REGARDS TO THE DIFFERENCE BTWN PLT SVCS, ATX OPS AND THE LEASING OF ACFT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN REGS. ALSO, IN CHKING ACFT MANUAL, FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IF A DISCREPANCY SHOWN BY AN INS OR PIECE OF EQUIP WOULD BE WORTHY OF CANCELLING FLT. A REVAMPING OF ACFT MANUALS PROVIDING MORE INFO ALONG THE LINES THAT ARE FOUND IN FLT SCHOOLS SUCH AS FLT SAFETY WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS THESE I'VE DESCRIBED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THAT HE CONTACTED HIS 'FRIEND' AFTER RETURN. FRIEND SAID HE TOO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPERATION AND WHETHER THINGS WERE ACCORDING TO REGS WITH A THIRD PARTY INVOLVED. WOULD THE OPERATION THEN FALL UNDER PART 135? SINCE RPTR FELT HE WAS UNDER PART 91, WAS HE ILLEGAL? FELT THINGS WERE VERY SHADY AND REGS ARE NOT EXPLICIT. FRIEND'S CONTACT WITH FAA APPARENTLY HAS THEM INVESTIGATING THE OPERATION. RPTR DOES NOT KNOW IF HE WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.