Narrative:

Received a phone call from a father asking me to find his overdue son who was on a hiking trip. The rescue was successful. However, the landing to pick up the father, who was familiar with the territory and the rescue lndgs, were off airport and may have been construed to fall under far 135 rules. I am currently part 135 qualified in type but with a different company and fly part 91 with this company. The pick-up and drop-off zone for the father was the same, so this should not be an issue. The boys were picked up on the trail and taken to a safe landing area, different from the pick-up area. It is unclr if a rescue for humanitarian reasons is exempt from far part 135. Further, the landing for rescue on the trail may have been in a designated wilderness area. Because I was guided by the father and another pilot (fixed wing) I am not certain of the exact location. The other pilot indicated his familiarity with the area by telling me he often flew up the river in his airplane. I assumed we were near but not in the wilderness area but can't be sure. Again, the landing was necessary for humanitarian reasons. The boy and his friend were long overdue and beginning to suffer from the cold and the elements. One more night may not have been possible. Public search and rescue would not have been local and the time to organize such a situation would have been extensive. I believe exemptions in the FARS should be made to allow a bona fide rescue regardless of the area or pilot paperwork issues. It would be company policy to bill for flight services and pay their hired pilots even in this case. Clrer definitions are called for in the FARS. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he not only is a part 135 qualified pilot for another operator, but is an a&P mechanic who maintains the helicopter that he was flying. It is inspected to a higher standard than the 100 hour requirement. He also conducts sight-seeing flts out of his sedona, az, location. He has never heard from any government agencies regarding this flight. He just did not know if the flight could be considered a part 135 flight to which he was not operating under. He was informed of the fact that part 135 excludes search and rescue missions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PART 91 HELI PLT WAS HIRED BY A FATHER OF AN OVERDUE SON ON A HIKING TRIP TO MAKE A SEARCH AND RESCUE. THE FATHER WAS PICKED UP ON A ROAD NEAR THE SEARCH AREA FOR THE SEARCH WHICH TOOK THEM INTO A WILDERNESS AREA. THE SEARCH WAS SUCCESSFUL AND THE RESCUE WAS MADE BACK TO THE FATHER'S PICK-UP SITE. THE RPTR IS CONCERNED THAT THIS FLT COULD BE CONSIDERED A PART 135 OP AND A VIOLATION OF FLYING INTO A WILDERNESS AREA WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Narrative: RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A FATHER ASKING ME TO FIND HIS OVERDUE SON WHO WAS ON A HIKING TRIP. THE RESCUE WAS SUCCESSFUL. HOWEVER, THE LNDG TO PICK UP THE FATHER, WHO WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE TERRITORY AND THE RESCUE LNDGS, WERE OFF ARPT AND MAY HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED TO FALL UNDER FAR 135 RULES. I AM CURRENTLY PART 135 QUALIFIED IN TYPE BUT WITH A DIFFERENT COMPANY AND FLY PART 91 WITH THIS COMPANY. THE PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF ZONE FOR THE FATHER WAS THE SAME, SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. THE BOYS WERE PICKED UP ON THE TRAIL AND TAKEN TO A SAFE LNDG AREA, DIFFERENT FROM THE PICK-UP AREA. IT IS UNCLR IF A RESCUE FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS IS EXEMPT FROM FAR PART 135. FURTHER, THE LNDG FOR RESCUE ON THE TRAIL MAY HAVE BEEN IN A DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREA. BECAUSE I WAS GUIDED BY THE FATHER AND ANOTHER PLT (FIXED WING) I AM NOT CERTAIN OF THE EXACT LOCATION. THE OTHER PLT INDICATED HIS FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA BY TELLING ME HE OFTEN FLEW UP THE RIVER IN HIS AIRPLANE. I ASSUMED WE WERE NEAR BUT NOT IN THE WILDERNESS AREA BUT CAN'T BE SURE. AGAIN, THE LNDG WAS NECESSARY FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS. THE BOY AND HIS FRIEND WERE LONG OVERDUE AND BEGINNING TO SUFFER FROM THE COLD AND THE ELEMENTS. ONE MORE NIGHT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. PUBLIC SEARCH AND RESCUE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LOCAL AND THE TIME TO ORGANIZE SUCH A SIT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE. I BELIEVE EXEMPTIONS IN THE FARS SHOULD BE MADE TO ALLOW A BONA FIDE RESCUE REGARDLESS OF THE AREA OR PLT PAPERWORK ISSUES. IT WOULD BE COMPANY POLICY TO BILL FOR FLT SVCS AND PAY THEIR HIRED PLTS EVEN IN THIS CASE. CLRER DEFINITIONS ARE CALLED FOR IN THE FARS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE NOT ONLY IS A PART 135 QUALIFIED PLT FOR ANOTHER OPERATOR, BUT IS AN A&P MECH WHO MAINTAINS THE HELI THAT HE WAS FLYING. IT IS INSPECTED TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE 100 HR REQUIREMENT. HE ALSO CONDUCTS SIGHT-SEEING FLTS OUT OF HIS SEDONA, AZ, LOCATION. HE HAS NEVER HEARD FROM ANY GOV AGENCIES REGARDING THIS FLT. HE JUST DID NOT KNOW IF THE FLT COULD BE CONSIDERED A PART 135 FLT TO WHICH HE WAS NOT OPERATING UNDER. HE WAS INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT PART 135 EXCLUDES SEARCH AND RESCUE MISSIONS.

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.