Narrative:

On 11/wed/91, my boss set up a part 91 sightseeing tour which was supposed to be a pick up and drop off at the thanksgiving tower in downtown dallas. I received clearance for the security people at thanksgiving tower to pick up the passengers and to drop them back off 1 hour later. On thursday me and another pilot flew 2 rotary winged smas to downtown dallas and landed on top of the tower. We flew approximately 25 statute mi to the super conducting super collider site in waxahatchie, tx. We then proceeded back towards dallas when I was informed by the 'tour guide' that we would be making a landing at a different location. He told me that the new landing site would be at their laboratories located in duncanville, tx, just south of red bird airport. This was the first that I had heard about the change of plans. I told the other pilot about the situation and we decided to drop the passengers off. This made the flight a part 135 flight so I was told by the FAA. I do not know if the FAA is going to take action on this matter or not but if my report can help anyone else out in this situation, I hope that you all will review and publish this incident to the rest of the aviators across the country. My personal feelings are that I think there was a breakdown in communication between myself and my boss and also I probably should have not been pressured to land. But when you have customers on board who are paying $525 per flight they don't want to hear about the FAA regulations and how you had no idea about the landing site. I just want to reinforce the fact that I hope this information will help someone else make better decisions while they are flying. Aviation has become very complex and there are a lot of grey areas in the FAA's regulations. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter's corp 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 areas 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 origination 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 lead 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 parts 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 reference 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.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POSSIBLE FAA ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON OWNER AND ALSO RPTR PLT OF HELI CORP 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: ON 11/WED/91, MY BOSS SET UP A PART 91 SIGHTSEEING TOUR WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PICK UP AND DROP OFF AT THE THANKSGIVING TWR IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS. I RECEIVED CLRNC FOR THE SECURITY PEOPLE AT THANKSGIVING TWR TO PICK UP THE PAXS AND TO DROP THEM BACK OFF 1 HR LATER. ON THURSDAY ME AND ANOTHER PLT FLEW 2 ROTARY WINGED SMAS TO DOWNTOWN DALLAS AND LANDED ON TOP OF THE TWR. WE FLEW APPROX 25 STATUTE MI TO THE SUPER CONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER SITE IN WAXAHATCHIE, TX. WE THEN PROCEEDED BACK TOWARDS DALLAS WHEN I WAS INFORMED BY THE 'TOUR GUIDE' THAT WE WOULD BE MAKING A LNDG AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. HE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW LNDG SITE WOULD BE AT THEIR LABORATORIES LOCATED IN DUNCANVILLE, TX, JUST S OF RED BIRD ARPT. THIS WAS THE FIRST THAT I HAD HEARD ABOUT THE CHANGE OF PLANS. I TOLD THE OTHER PLT ABOUT THE SITUATION AND WE DECIDED TO DROP THE PAXS OFF. THIS MADE THE FLT A PART 135 FLT SO I WAS TOLD BY THE FAA. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE FAA IS GOING TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS MATTER OR NOT BUT IF MY RPT CAN HELP ANYONE ELSE OUT IN THIS SITUATION, I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL REVIEW AND PUBLISH THIS INCIDENT TO THE REST OF THE AVIATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ARE THAT I THINK THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COM BTWN MYSELF AND MY BOSS AND ALSO I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSURED TO LAND. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE CUSTOMERS ON BOARD WHO ARE PAYING $525 PER FLT THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE FAA REGS AND HOW YOU HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE LNDG SITE. I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THE FACT THAT I HOPE THIS INFO WILL HELP SOMEONE ELSE MAKE BETTER DECISIONS WHILE THEY ARE FLYING. AVIATION HAS BECOME VERY COMPLEX AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GREY AREAS IN THE FAA'S REGS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR'S CORP 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 AREAS 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 ORIGINATION 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 LEAD 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 INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO WITHIN THE OPERATING ENVELOPES OF PARTS 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 REF 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.