Narrative:

As chief flight instructor and a part-time line air-taxi pilot for FBO in cheyenne, wy, I was tasked on jan/xa/99 to fly a game count mission the next day (jan/xb/99). I departed cys at approximately XX30 on jan/xb/99 and flew to lar to pick up my passenger/counter. The aircraft used was our C172RG, an aircraft I have flown and instructed in since at least mar/85. My passenger and I departed lar approximately XX15 and proceeded to hanna, wy, where we initiated the low level game counting. The exercise was completed at approximately XX30 and we returned to lar where my passenger was dropped off and I returned to cheyenne. The mission was completed approximately XX15. To the best of my understanding, the mission was accomplished in a safe and effective manner. My passenger expressed satisfaction with the results of the count and the degree of safety employed. The next morning at approximately XA30 I received a telephone call from inspector, FAA/FSDO aps officer in casper, asking me how the flight yesterday went. I responded that it went well and he advised me he had received some complaints concerning it. He further asked if it was a game count mission and, I believe, confirmed that I had not landed at any other airports other than the one where I had picked up my passenger. I verified both points in the affirmative. He then stated that that was all he needed to know and that as far as he was concerned the matter was closed. He went on to state that the caller, who wished to remain anonymous, stated they did not want to get the pilot in trouble but questioned as to whether the pilot was part 135/air-taxi qualified. I assured him that I was qualified. When I expressed surprise that an individual on the ground (believe I used the term 'troop'), I presumed complaining about the low- level flying, would be knowledgeable enough to use the term 'part 135' or 'air-taxi' he responded that it was not a 'troop' that called. We had 2 conversations to discuss this and other matters. Subsequent to these telephone conversations I reviewed my company training records and discovered that to date my training and qualifications to fly air-taxi are in fact limited to our piper PA34 seneca twin. That had been accomplished last aug/98. I had accomplished training in another single-engine airplane with another instructor and training/air-taxi qualification sessions in our single-engine air-taxi airplanes with our director of operations/check airman have been planned and scheduled but not accomplished at this point. It is my interpretation of the regulations at this point that on this mission I was in violation of the regulations. Training and qualification to rectify this oversight are now scheduled to be accomplished this month. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the FAA inspector investigating this matter had not made any more inquiries and he believes that the investigation has been closed. He further stated that he is an accident prevention counselor designated by the FAA to help pilots fly safe and abide by the rules demonstrating his safety minded attitude. He was advised that the flight as described by him would not be applicable under the applicability of part 135. In addition, if he did not fly over persons or structures at 200 ft AGL, his low flying operation would be within the criteria of MSA's.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A C172RG AFTER A GAME SURVEY FLT WAS QUESTIONED BY FAA INSPECTOR REGARDING A COMPLAINT OF A GND OBSERVER BELIEVING THAT THE FLT WAS BELOW FAR MINIMUMS AND THE PLT WAS NOT FAR PART 135 QUALIFIED.

Narrative: AS CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR AND A PART-TIME LINE AIR-TAXI PLT FOR FBO IN CHEYENNE, WY, I WAS TASKED ON JAN/XA/99 TO FLY A GAME COUNT MISSION THE NEXT DAY (JAN/XB/99). I DEPARTED CYS AT APPROX XX30 ON JAN/XB/99 AND FLEW TO LAR TO PICK UP MY PAX/COUNTER. THE ACFT USED WAS OUR C172RG, AN ACFT I HAVE FLOWN AND INSTRUCTED IN SINCE AT LEAST MAR/85. MY PAX AND I DEPARTED LAR APPROX XX15 AND PROCEEDED TO HANNA, WY, WHERE WE INITIATED THE LOW LEVEL GAME COUNTING. THE EXERCISE WAS COMPLETED AT APPROX XX30 AND WE RETURNED TO LAR WHERE MY PAX WAS DROPPED OFF AND I RETURNED TO CHEYENNE. THE MISSION WAS COMPLETED APPROX XX15. TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, THE MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MANNER. MY PAX EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE RESULTS OF THE COUNT AND THE DEGREE OF SAFETY EMPLOYED. THE NEXT MORNING AT APPROX XA30 I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM INSPECTOR, FAA/FSDO APS OFFICER IN CASPER, ASKING ME HOW THE FLT YESTERDAY WENT. I RESPONDED THAT IT WENT WELL AND HE ADVISED ME HE HAD RECEIVED SOME COMPLAINTS CONCERNING IT. HE FURTHER ASKED IF IT WAS A GAME COUNT MISSION AND, I BELIEVE, CONFIRMED THAT I HAD NOT LANDED AT ANY OTHER ARPTS OTHER THAN THE ONE WHERE I HAD PICKED UP MY PAX. I VERIFIED BOTH POINTS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. HE THEN STATED THAT THAT WAS ALL HE NEEDED TO KNOW AND THAT AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED THE MATTER WAS CLOSED. HE WENT ON TO STATE THAT THE CALLER, WHO WISHED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS, STATED THEY DID NOT WANT TO GET THE PLT IN TROUBLE BUT QUESTIONED AS TO WHETHER THE PLT WAS PART 135/AIR-TAXI QUALIFIED. I ASSURED HIM THAT I WAS QUALIFIED. WHEN I EXPRESSED SURPRISE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE GND (BELIEVE I USED THE TERM 'TROOP'), I PRESUMED COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LOW- LEVEL FLYING, WOULD BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO USE THE TERM 'PART 135' OR 'AIR-TAXI' HE RESPONDED THAT IT WAS NOT A 'TROOP' THAT CALLED. WE HAD 2 CONVERSATIONS TO DISCUSS THIS AND OTHER MATTERS. SUBSEQUENT TO THESE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS I REVIEWED MY COMPANY TRAINING RECORDS AND DISCOVERED THAT TO DATE MY TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS TO FLY AIR-TAXI ARE IN FACT LIMITED TO OUR PIPER PA34 SENECA TWIN. THAT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED LAST AUG/98. I HAD ACCOMPLISHED TRAINING IN ANOTHER SINGLE-ENG AIRPLANE WITH ANOTHER INSTRUCTOR AND TRAINING/AIR-TAXI QUALIFICATION SESSIONS IN OUR SINGLE-ENG AIR-TAXI AIRPLANES WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF OPS/CHK AIRMAN HAVE BEEN PLANNED AND SCHEDULED BUT NOT ACCOMPLISHED AT THIS POINT. IT IS MY INTERP OF THE REGS AT THIS POINT THAT ON THIS MISSION I WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE REGS. TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION TO RECTIFY THIS OVERSIGHT ARE NOW SCHEDULED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THIS MONTH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR INVESTIGATING THIS MATTER HAD NOT MADE ANY MORE INQUIRIES AND HE BELIEVES THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS AN ACCIDENT PREVENTION COUNSELOR DESIGNATED BY THE FAA TO HELP PLTS FLY SAFE AND ABIDE BY THE RULES DEMONSTRATING HIS SAFETY MINDED ATTITUDE. HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FLT AS DESCRIBED BY HIM WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE UNDER THE APPLICABILITY OF PART 135. IN ADDITION, IF HE DID NOT FLY OVER PERSONS OR STRUCTURES AT 200 FT AGL, HIS LOW FLYING OP WOULD BE WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF MSA'S.

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.