Narrative:

I agreed to fly a cargo flight for a part 91 operator. The flight was in an aircraft not owned by the operator because their aircraft was down for maintenance. I agreed to do the flight for no compensation and the operator agreed to provide the airplane for no charge, to keep things legal. I thought that since I was not receiving any compensation and the operator was not receiving any compensation that it would be a legal flight. I was later made aware that even though no money exchanged hands, I may be in violation since receiving flight time can be considered compensation. The operator may also be in violation since it could be argued that they paid for the flight but did so in order not to lose the contract that they had. Supplemental information from acn 519323: this was the second night that I had flown this flight because their aircraft was down for 2 days. It was after this second flight that I realized I may possibly be in violation. Callback conversation with reporter on acn 519294 revealed the following information: reporter stated that he was trying to do a favor for the operator of the aircraft on the contractual time share program so that it would help the operator keep his contract with the company until obtaining a part 135 certificate. This type of manipulation would generate the belief that the operator was trying to circumnav the far's. Therefore, he as the pilot and owner of the cessna 310 was putting himself in jeopardy as well as the part 91 operator attempting to obtain a part 135 certificate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATP RATED PLT OF A CESSNA 310 TAKES 2 CARGO NIGHT FLTS FOR NO COMPENSATION SINCE THE COMPANY, FOR WHICH THE FLT WAS MADE, HAD A TIME SHARE AGREEMENT WITH THEIR ACFT WHICH WAS OTS AND THEY DID NOT HAVE AN FAR PART 135 CERTIFICATE.

Narrative: I AGREED TO FLY A CARGO FLT FOR A PART 91 OPERATOR. THE FLT WAS IN AN ACFT NOT OWNED BY THE OPERATOR BECAUSE THEIR ACFT WAS DOWN FOR MAINT. I AGREED TO DO THE FLT FOR NO COMPENSATION AND THE OPERATOR AGREED TO PROVIDE THE AIRPLANE FOR NO CHARGE, TO KEEP THINGS LEGAL. I THOUGHT THAT SINCE I WAS NOT RECEIVING ANY COMPENSATION AND THE OPERATOR WAS NOT RECEIVING ANY COMPENSATION THAT IT WOULD BE A LEGAL FLT. I WAS LATER MADE AWARE THAT EVEN THOUGH NO MONEY EXCHANGED HANDS, I MAY BE IN VIOLATION SINCE RECEIVING FLT TIME CAN BE CONSIDERED COMPENSATION. THE OPERATOR MAY ALSO BE IN VIOLATION SINCE IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THEY PAID FOR THE FLT BUT DID SO IN ORDER NOT TO LOSE THE CONTRACT THAT THEY HAD. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 519323: THIS WAS THE SECOND NIGHT THAT I HAD FLOWN THIS FLT BECAUSE THEIR ACFT WAS DOWN FOR 2 DAYS. IT WAS AFTER THIS SECOND FLT THAT I REALIZED I MAY POSSIBLY BE IN VIOLATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ON ACN 519294 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO A FAVOR FOR THE OPERATOR OF THE ACFT ON THE CONTRACTUAL TIME SHARE PROGRAM SO THAT IT WOULD HELP THE OPERATOR KEEP HIS CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY UNTIL OBTAINING A PART 135 CERTIFICATE. THIS TYPE OF MANIPULATION WOULD GENERATE THE BELIEF THAT THE OPERATOR WAS TRYING TO CIRCUMNAV THE FAR'S. THEREFORE, HE AS THE PLT AND OWNER OF THE CESSNA 310 WAS PUTTING HIMSELF IN JEOPARDY AS WELL AS THE PART 91 OPERATOR ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN A PART 135 CERTIFICATE.

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.