Narrative:

I was asked by the owner of columbia FBO to conduct a local scenic flight in their (PA28R-20TT) piper arrow. I am not employed by FBO, but I am a friend, with a commercial certificate, current ii class medical. Flight visibility was VFR but poor for a scenic flight. I informed the passenger that we may not see much, they understood and chose to go ahead with the flight. I was asked in the air to go to several areas of interest to the passenger. Some areas were difficult to locate due to the haze, inversion layer and position of the sun. After discussion, I was asked to climb to a higher altitude in order to see the sierras, clearing haze and inversion layers. At 12000 ft visibility improved. At that time I had inadvertently exceeded my 25 SM limitation. Contributing factors: VFR, but poor visibility. I did not recognize my usual landmark for determining distance from airport. Constantly being asked to go to different areas by passenger. Discovered problem 2 times. First when I climbed above the haze and saw my proximity to yosemite national park. Second, when I was informally queried by telephone from a fresno FSDO inspector. My corrective action is to recognize the human factors associated with this event and not allow it to occur again. My judgement and decisions were based on wanting to help a friend. Judgement was clouded, but no motive existed to intentionally or otherwise violate any far's in this or any event. If I had realized the mistake in the air, I would have fixed the situation and discontinued the flight beyond 25 SM. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that a competitor on the field reported him to the FSDO because he felt the reporter was taking away business from him. Since that time, reporter has spoken with FSDO inspector, the competitor and the FBO operator with whom he is acquainted. The flight was made without compensation, just as a favor to the people who wanted to 'flight see.' thus the 25 mi limitation would not apply. Reporter is concerned as he was using an aircraft normally used for part 135 operations and felt he should comply with the regulations pertaining to 135 operations. He shared expenses with the passenger under part 91 regulations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE 25 MI RADIUS EXEMPTION FOR PART 135 FLTS.

Narrative: I WAS ASKED BY THE OWNER OF COLUMBIA FBO TO CONDUCT A LCL SCENIC FLT IN THEIR (PA28R-20TT) PIPER ARROW. I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY FBO, BUT I AM A FRIEND, WITH A COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE, CURRENT II CLASS MEDICAL. FLT VISIBILITY WAS VFR BUT POOR FOR A SCENIC FLT. I INFORMED THE PAX THAT WE MAY NOT SEE MUCH, THEY UNDERSTOOD AND CHOSE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE FLT. I WAS ASKED IN THE AIR TO GO TO SEVERAL AREAS OF INTEREST TO THE PAX. SOME AREAS WERE DIFFICULT TO LOCATE DUE TO THE HAZE, INVERSION LAYER AND POS OF THE SUN. AFTER DISCUSSION, I WAS ASKED TO CLB TO A HIGHER ALT IN ORDER TO SEE THE SIERRAS, CLRING HAZE AND INVERSION LAYERS. AT 12000 FT VISIBILITY IMPROVED. AT THAT TIME I HAD INADVERTENTLY EXCEEDED MY 25 SM LIMITATION. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: VFR, BUT POOR VISIBILITY. I DID NOT RECOGNIZE MY USUAL LANDMARK FOR DETERMINING DISTANCE FROM ARPT. CONSTANTLY BEING ASKED TO GO TO DIFFERENT AREAS BY PAX. DISCOVERED PROB 2 TIMES. FIRST WHEN I CLBED ABOVE THE HAZE AND SAW MY PROX TO YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK. SECOND, WHEN I WAS INFORMALLY QUERIED BY TELEPHONE FROM A FRESNO FSDO INSPECTOR. MY CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO RECOGNIZE THE HUMAN FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EVENT AND NOT ALLOW IT TO OCCUR AGAIN. MY JUDGEMENT AND DECISIONS WERE BASED ON WANTING TO HELP A FRIEND. JUDGEMENT WAS CLOUDED, BUT NO MOTIVE EXISTED TO INTENTIONALLY OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY FAR'S IN THIS OR ANY EVENT. IF I HAD REALIZED THE MISTAKE IN THE AIR, I WOULD HAVE FIXED THE SIT AND DISCONTINUED THE FLT BEYOND 25 SM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT A COMPETITOR ON THE FIELD RPTED HIM TO THE FSDO BECAUSE HE FELT THE RPTR WAS TAKING AWAY BUSINESS FROM HIM. SINCE THAT TIME, RPTR HAS SPOKEN WITH FSDO INSPECTOR, THE COMPETITOR AND THE FBO OPERATOR WITH WHOM HE IS ACQUAINTED. THE FLT WAS MADE WITHOUT COMPENSATION, JUST AS A FAVOR TO THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO 'FLT SEE.' THUS THE 25 MI LIMITATION WOULD NOT APPLY. RPTR IS CONCERNED AS HE WAS USING AN ACFT NORMALLY USED FOR PART 135 OPS AND FELT HE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE REGS PERTAINING TO 135 OPS. HE SHARED EXPENSES WITH THE PAX UNDER PART 91 REGS.

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.