Narrative:

This is in reference to far part 91 and 135. On 10/wed/91 I received a call from channel X tv station requesting the leasing information on our helicopter. They said they needed the helicopter to fly to killeen, tx, for a photography mission (aerial). I am the only pilot that flies from heliport and we have a daily contract with a radio station to do the traffic reporting. The reporter at channel X said that it would not take more than 2 hours to complete the job. I decided to get a backup pilot just in case we were late getting back. I left grand prairie airport at approximately XA00, flew over to the tv station off the I 30 near ft. Worth. A camera man and reporter got on board the aircraft. He, the camera man, had with him his beta camera with his batteries and she had a cellular phone and other material such as a note pad, etc. As we were en route I asked the reporter what we would be shooting she told me there had been an incident in killeen and that we would begetting aerial photos. As we arrived in killeen there were approximately 10 to 12 news helicopters in the area all of which were trying to get aerial shots. The ATC facility supervisor stated that all of the aircraft in the area should exit and stay clear of the area. I was not able to get the shot that the photographer wanted. By this time, I needed to refuel. The reporter said that she had made prior arrangements to land at the military base and wanted to interview the family members of the survivors. Ft. Hood denied us the landing clearance. So I informed them that I would land at the killeen municipal airport for fuel. When I landed the photographer and the reporter exited the aircraft immediately. At that time, I had no idea where they were going or when they would be back. I shut the machine down and went into the terminal building and waited. After 7 hours of waiting and approximately 5 phone calls back to the tv station in ft. Worth to see where my passenger were, they showed back up at the airport with 2 more rptrs. We departure killeen airport at approximately late pm local time and flew back to dallas reunion helipad. I dropped 2 peopleoff there then we flew to the ft. Worth tv station where I dropped the other people off (photographer and the reporter) then I flew back to G.P. I have not personally received a letter from the FAA office but I am sure that I will. This incident, in my view, falls under far part 91. It was an aerial photo mission that turned into a long situation time for me. If this flight is deemed as a part 135 flight by the FAA, it could jeopardize my carrier as a helicopter pilot. My reference material for determining the flight as not being 135 is found in far 135.1 chapter B-4 III. I want your team to examine this carefully and submit this incident to help other pilots discern between part 91 and 135. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter's corporation is certificated under part 91 of the FARS not part 135. The areas of operation that he was originally hired to perform fell within the area of part 91. Far 135 specifically excludes aerial photography or survey and non-stop sightseeing flts that begin and end within 25 NM of the same organization airport. (See attachment - copy of far 135.1(B)(2)(4).) reporter's contention is that previous to the flight he had an understanding with the individuals taken along for hire and that a landing was not planned. Due to the circumstances as outlined in each event he did make an unscheduled landing. His concern over possible entry within the grey areas of the FARS, and particularly into the boundaries of far 135, led him into making a report on each occurrence, albeit it after the 10 day grace period. His main concern, after the now threatened FAA investigation by dfw FSDO, is that other operators be alerted to the pitfalls of interpretation of what you are allowed to do within the operating envelopes of part 91 and 135. To land or not to land, that is the question. His conflict in attempting to answer that all important question was a state of low fuel remaining and in the other case, a possibility of having several irate customers on his hands that did not understand the relevance of the parameters of the FARS. It appears that the problem arose, in both cases, of a change in flight plans from the customer, not from the operator reporter. He felt a loss of control of the situation through some levels of misunderstanding regarding the original intent of the flts, in short, by landing, he placed himself in the category of a 135 operator and the FSDO office feels that the owner is attempting this operation without proper certification.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POSSIBLE FAA ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON OWNER AND ALSO RPTR PLT OF HELI CORPORATION FOR OPERATING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF FAR 135 INSTEAD OF FAR 91 AS LICENSED. BY LNDG PAX AT AN INTERMEDIATE POINT RATHER THAN RETURNING NON-STOP TO POINT OR ARPT OF ORIGIN FAA CONTENDS THAT PLT EXCEEDED BOUNDARY OF FAR 91 AND ENTERED INTO PART 135.

Narrative: THIS IS IN REF TO FAR PART 91 AND 135. ON 10/WED/91 I RECEIVED A CALL FROM CHANNEL X TV STATION REQUESTING THE LEASING INFORMATION ON OUR HELI. THEY SAID THEY NEEDED THE HELI TO FLY TO KILLEEN, TX, FOR A PHOTOGRAPHY MISSION (AERIAL). I AM THE ONLY PLT THAT FLIES FROM HELIPORT AND WE HAVE A DAILY CONTRACT WITH A RADIO STATION TO DO THE TFC RPTING. THE RPTR AT CHANNEL X SAID THAT IT WOULD NOT TAKE MORE THAN 2 HRS TO COMPLETE THE JOB. I DECIDED TO GET A BACKUP PLT JUST IN CASE WE WERE LATE GETTING BACK. I LEFT GRAND PRAIRIE ARPT AT APPROX XA00, FLEW OVER TO THE TV STATION OFF THE I 30 NEAR FT. WORTH. A CAMERA MAN AND RPTR GOT ON BOARD THE ACFT. HE, THE CAMERA MAN, HAD WITH HIM HIS BETA CAMERA WITH HIS BATTERIES AND SHE HAD A CELLULAR PHONE AND OTHER MATERIAL SUCH AS A NOTE PAD, ETC. AS WE WERE ENRTE I ASKED THE RPTR WHAT WE WOULD BE SHOOTING SHE TOLD ME THERE HAD BEEN AN INCIDENT IN KILLEEN AND THAT WE WOULD BEGETTING AERIAL PHOTOS. AS WE ARRIVED IN KILLEEN THERE WERE APPROX 10 TO 12 NEWS HELIS IN THE AREA ALL OF WHICH WERE TRYING TO GET AERIAL SHOTS. THE ATC FACILITY SUPVR STATED THAT ALL OF THE ACFT IN THE AREA SHOULD EXIT AND STAY CLR OF THE AREA. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE SHOT THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHER WANTED. BY THIS TIME, I NEEDED TO REFUEL. THE RPTR SAID THAT SHE HAD MADE PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS TO LAND AT THE MIL BASE AND WANTED TO INTERVIEW THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE SURVIVORS. FT. HOOD DENIED US THE LNDG CLRNC. SO I INFORMED THEM THAT I WOULD LAND AT THE KILLEEN MUNICIPAL ARPT FOR FUEL. WHEN I LANDED THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE RPTR EXITED THE ACFT IMMEDIATELY. AT THAT TIME, I HAD NO IDEA WHERE THEY WERE GOING OR WHEN THEY WOULD BE BACK. I SHUT THE MACHINE DOWN AND WENT INTO THE TERMINAL BUILDING AND WAITED. AFTER 7 HRS OF WAITING AND APPROX 5 PHONE CALLS BACK TO THE TV STATION IN FT. WORTH TO SEE WHERE MY PAX WERE, THEY SHOWED BACK UP AT THE ARPT WITH 2 MORE RPTRS. WE DEP KILLEEN ARPT AT APPROX LATE PM LCL TIME AND FLEW BACK TO DALLAS REUNION HELIPAD. I DROPPED 2 PEOPLEOFF THERE THEN WE FLEW TO THE FT. WORTH TV STATION WHERE I DROPPED THE OTHER PEOPLE OFF (PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE RPTR) THEN I FLEW BACK TO G.P. I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE FAA OFFICE BUT I AM SURE THAT I WILL. THIS INCIDENT, IN MY VIEW, FALLS UNDER FAR PART 91. IT WAS AN AERIAL PHOTO MISSION THAT TURNED INTO A LONG SIT TIME FOR ME. IF THIS FLIGHT IS DEEMED AS A PART 135 FLT BY THE FAA, IT COULD JEOPARDIZE MY CARRIER AS A HELI PLT. MY REF MATERIAL FOR DETERMINING THE FLT AS NOT BEING 135 IS FOUND IN FAR 135.1 CHAPTER B-4 III. I WANT YOUR TEAM TO EXAMINE THIS CAREFULLY AND SUBMIT THIS INCIDENT TO HELP OTHER PLTS DISCERN BTWN PART 91 AND 135. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR'S CORPORATION IS CERTIFICATED UNDER PART 91 OF THE FARS NOT PART 135. THE AREAS OF OP THAT HE WAS ORIGINALLY HIRED TO PERFORM FELL WITHIN THE AREA OF PART 91. FAR 135 SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OR SURVEY AND NON-STOP SIGHTSEEING FLTS THAT BEGIN AND END WITHIN 25 NM OF THE SAME ORGANIZATION ARPT. (SEE ATTACHMENT - COPY OF FAR 135.1(B)(2)(4).) RPTR'S CONTENTION IS THAT PREVIOUS TO THE FLT HE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN ALONG FOR HIRE AND THAT A LNDG WAS NOT PLANNED. DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS OUTLINED IN EACH EVENT HE DID MAKE AN UNSCHEDULED LNDG. HIS CONCERN OVER POSSIBLE ENTRY WITHIN THE GREY AREAS OF THE FARS, AND PARTICULARLY INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF FAR 135, LED HIM INTO MAKING A RPT ON EACH OCCURRENCE, ALBEIT IT AFTER THE 10 DAY GRACE PERIOD. HIS MAIN CONCERN, AFTER THE NOW THREATENED FAA INVESTIGATION BY DFW FSDO, IS THAT OTHER OPERATORS BE ALERTED TO THE PITFALLS OF INTERP OF WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO WITHIN THE OPERATING ENVELOPES OF PART 91 AND 135. TO LAND OR NOT TO LAND, THAT IS THE QUESTION. HIS CONFLICT IN ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER THAT ALL IMPORTANT QUESTION WAS A STATE OF LOW FUEL REMAINING AND IN THE OTHER CASE, A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING SEVERAL IRATE CUSTOMERS ON HIS HANDS THAT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE FARS. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROBLEM AROSE, IN BOTH CASES, OF A CHANGE IN FLT PLANS FROM THE CUSTOMER, NOT FROM THE OPERATOR RPTR. HE FELT A LOSS OF CTL OF THE SITUATION THROUGH SOME LEVELS OF MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FLTS, IN SHORT, BY LNDG, HE PLACED HIMSELF IN THE CATEGORY OF A 135 OPERATOR AND THE FSDO OFFICE FEELS THAT THE OWNER IS ATTEMPTING THIS OP WITHOUT PROPER CERTIFICATION.

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.