Pilot of an aerial photo flight helicopter dropped off the photographer at the work site when the he...

Attributes
ACN	313608
Time
Date	199508
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ffz
State Reference	AZ
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Helicopter
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff landing other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 7000
ASRS Report	313608
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	other other : other
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was flying on a local photo flight for a tv station. A police officer was shot dead on a highway and we were getting aerial pictures of the entire scene, including traffic and possible suspect vehicles. My photographer and I needed to leave the area to get fuel and then return. He asked if I could drop him off so he could get a closer look while I went to get gas, then return to pick him up for more aerials. I did so. After I completed the flight, my boss questioned me on the landing and whether that made the flight far 135 or far 91. I believe the way far 135.1 is written that photo flts are part 91 and don't specifically say no lndgs, etc. But elected to file this report just in case there was any question or complaints by other operators or pilots. In the future, I should probably avoid this 'gray' area of the regulations until I can get proper interpretation from our local FAA/FSDO office. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he still did not know if this flight was considered a part 135 flight since the photographer was dropped off at the scene. He said that the operator he worked for did have a part 135 certificate but did not have the helicopter he was operating on the 135 certificate. The far was reviewed with him with particular attention directed to the clarification shown in the helicopter item under far 135.1 (B), wherein it states that transportation to and from the site is not included in the exception to part 135. Therefore, for the reason cited by the reporter that may arise during various types of helicopter work activity, operators become certificated under part 135 since this type of operation then becomes transportation for the persons 'dropped off' at the site. He stated that he did not really have to drop off the photo person and he therefore, considered it a stupid act!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN AERIAL PHOTO FLT HELI DROPPED OFF THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT THE WORK SITE WHEN THE HELI ACFT WAS NOT CERTIFIED UNDER PART 135.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING ON A LCL PHOTO FLT FOR A TV STATION. A POLICE OFFICER WAS SHOT DEAD ON A HWY AND WE WERE GETTING AERIAL PICTURES OF THE ENTIRE SCENE, INCLUDING TFC AND POSSIBLE SUSPECT VEHICLES. MY PHOTOGRAPHER AND I NEEDED TO LEAVE THE AREA TO GET FUEL AND THEN RETURN. HE ASKED IF I COULD DROP HIM OFF SO HE COULD GET A CLOSER LOOK WHILE I WENT TO GET GAS, THEN RETURN TO PICK HIM UP FOR MORE AERIALS. I DID SO. AFTER I COMPLETED THE FLT, MY BOSS QUESTIONED ME ON THE LNDG AND WHETHER THAT MADE THE FLT FAR 135 OR FAR 91. I BELIEVE THE WAY FAR 135.1 IS WRITTEN THAT PHOTO FLTS ARE PART 91 AND DON'T SPECIFICALLY SAY NO LNDGS, ETC. BUT ELECTED TO FILE THIS RPT JUST IN CASE THERE WAS ANY QUESTION OR COMPLAINTS BY OTHER OPERATORS OR PLTS. IN THE FUTURE, I SHOULD PROBABLY AVOID THIS 'GRAY' AREA OF THE REGS UNTIL I CAN GET PROPER INTERP FROM OUR LCL FAA/FSDO OFFICE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE STILL DID NOT KNOW IF THIS FLT WAS CONSIDERED A PART 135 FLT SINCE THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS DROPPED OFF AT THE SCENE. HE SAID THAT THE OPERATOR HE WORKED FOR DID HAVE A PART 135 CERTIFICATE BUT DID NOT HAVE THE HELI HE WAS OPERATING ON THE 135 CERTIFICATE. THE FAR WAS REVIEWED WITH HIM WITH PARTICULAR ATTN DIRECTED TO THE CLARIFICATION SHOWN IN THE HELI ITEM UNDER FAR 135.1 (B), WHEREIN IT STATES THAT TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE SITE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXCEPTION TO PART 135. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASON CITED BY THE RPTR THAT MAY ARISE DURING VARIOUS TYPES OF HELI WORK ACTIVITY, OPERATORS BECOME CERTIFICATED UNDER PART 135 SINCE THIS TYPE OF OP THEN BECOMES TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PERSONS 'DROPPED OFF' AT THE SITE. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT REALLY HAVE TO DROP OFF THE PHOTO PERSON AND HE THEREFORE, CONSIDERED IT A STUPID ACT!

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.

Pilot of an aerial photo flight helicopter dropped off the photographer at the work site when the helicopter aircraft was not certified under part 135.