Narrative:

It is possible that I am in violation of crash fire rescue equipment #91.407(B) 'operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.' in any case, it would have been unintentional. I am a CFI with an FBO based at hef in manassas, va. FBO chief of maintenance had assigned me (on mar/xa/01) to fly C172 to hgr to pick up a rudder (for a C152) that had been repaired there. On the trip back to hef, I was to land at jyo to pick up a landing gear switch for FBO's BE76. Also, I was assigned to fly circles around the airport for 10-15 mins prior to departing the hef area for hgr in order to ensure everything was alright with the airplane. I brought another licensed private pilot with me on this flight (a passenger of fairfax, va) to serve duty as a crew member (reference 91.407(B)). I had passenger perform the task of occasionally flying the airplane while I consulted written information pertaining to the operation of the engine following repair. This information included (but was not limited to) operating guidelines with respect to RPM, density altitude, percent power, and closed-throttle dscnts. Passenger, when not flying, performed duties ranging from reading aloud information from the above-mentioned written engine-operating guidelines to keeping an eye out for air traffic while I scanned engine gauges to assist me with loading the rudder into the airplane at hgr (not a simple task!). It should be noted that it was not made clear to me by FBO chief of maintenance that this was a 'return to service' test flight. The fact that I was assigned to fly cross country to hgr also eliminated in my mind the possibility that it was a 'return to service' flight. This situation was caused by a lack of solid communication skills between myself and the maintenance chief. Fortunately, by default, I assigned duties to passenger to perform during the flight. I believe that he served as a required pilot flight crew member. In summary, although in spirit I may have violated 91.407 (albeit, inadvertently and unintentionally), I don't believe that I was in technical violation. The reasoning follows. I assigned duties to a 'crew member' (reference definition in far 1.1) therefore, passenger cannot be regarded as passenger. Also, I don't believe that the aircraft had been maintained in 'a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in-flight' (reference 91.407(B)).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT FOR AN FBO FLEW A C172 ON A XCOUNTRY FLT WITH A PAX PRIOR TO FIRST FLYING AN AFTER MAINT TEST FLT AND RECORDING IT IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK.

Narrative: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I AM IN VIOLATION OF CFR #91.407(B) 'OP AFTER MAINT, PREVENTIVE MAINT, REBUILDING, OR ALTERATION.' IN ANY CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL. I AM A CFI WITH AN FBO BASED AT HEF IN MANASSAS, VA. FBO CHIEF OF MAINT HAD ASSIGNED ME (ON MAR/XA/01) TO FLY C172 TO HGR TO PICK UP A RUDDER (FOR A C152) THAT HAD BEEN REPAIRED THERE. ON THE TRIP BACK TO HEF, I WAS TO LAND AT JYO TO PICK UP A LNDG GEAR SWITCH FOR FBO'S BE76. ALSO, I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY CIRCLES AROUND THE ARPT FOR 10-15 MINS PRIOR TO DEPARTING THE HEF AREA FOR HGR IN ORDER TO ENSURE EVERYTHING WAS ALRIGHT WITH THE AIRPLANE. I BROUGHT ANOTHER LICENSED PVT PLT WITH ME ON THIS FLT (A PAX OF FAIRFAX, VA) TO SERVE DUTY AS A CREW MEMBER (REF 91.407(B)). I HAD PAX PERFORM THE TASK OF OCCASIONALLY FLYING THE AIRPLANE WHILE I CONSULTED WRITTEN INFO PERTAINING TO THE OP OF THE ENG FOLLOWING REPAIR. THIS INFO INCLUDED (BUT WAS NOT LIMITED TO) OPERATING GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO RPM, DENSITY ALT, PERCENT PWR, AND CLOSED-THROTTLE DSCNTS. PAX, WHEN NOT FLYING, PERFORMED DUTIES RANGING FROM READING ALOUD INFO FROM THE ABOVE-MENTIONED WRITTEN ENG-OPERATING GUIDELINES TO KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR AIR TFC WHILE I SCANNED ENG GAUGES TO ASSIST ME WITH LOADING THE RUDDER INTO THE AIRPLANE AT HGR (NOT A SIMPLE TASK!). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT MADE CLR TO ME BY FBO CHIEF OF MAINT THAT THIS WAS A 'RETURN TO SVC' TEST FLT. THE FACT THAT I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY XCOUNTRY TO HGR ALSO ELIMINATED IN MY MIND THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS A 'RETURN TO SVC' FLT. THIS SIT WAS CAUSED BY A LACK OF SOLID COM SKILLS BTWN MYSELF AND THE MAINT CHIEF. FORTUNATELY, BY DEFAULT, I ASSIGNED DUTIES TO PAX TO PERFORM DURING THE FLT. I BELIEVE THAT HE SERVED AS A REQUIRED PLT FLC MEMBER. IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH IN SPIRIT I MAY HAVE VIOLATED 91.407 (ALBEIT, INADVERTENTLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY), I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WAS IN TECHNICAL VIOLATION. THE REASONING FOLLOWS. I ASSIGNED DUTIES TO A 'CREW MEMBER' (REF DEFINITION IN FAR 1.1) THEREFORE, PAX CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PAX. ALSO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED IN 'A MANNER THAT MAY HAVE APPRECIABLY CHANGED ITS FLT CHARACTERISTICS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED ITS OP INFLT' (REF 91.407(B)).

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.