Narrative:

I received a letter last week from the FAA notifying me I was being investigated for numerous flts made in a lear 35. My husband and I are both pilots for a company in medford, or called ' company X' and 'company Y.' we provide pilot services for several different companies through the company Y. In 04/xa/01 the company Y lost it's 135 certificate and we were told by the owner of the company all pilot services we were performing were part 91 flts, i.e., they were for the owners of the aircraft or legitimate lease agreements were on board the aircraft for the individuals, we saw copies of the agreements, we were flying. The FAA is now stating those flts were actually charter flts and are threatening to suspend the pilots certificates for 6 months (there were 8 pilots involved altogether). We are cooperating in their investigation and have submitted copies of requested information. Since I have just found out about this in the last 10 days, I'm hoping you'll be able to give this case consideration. Callback conversation with the reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the FAA has indicated that the reporter will be issued a letter of warning because it appears because it appears that the flts were in violation of the regulations covering flts for hire in air commerce, but through her cooperation, the sanction would be reduced to a warning letter. However, there were other pilots, including her employer, who had not cooperated that would be given strong pilot certificate suspensions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LEAR JET 35 CAPT HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY FAA THAT SEVERAL FLTS TAKEN MAY BE CONSIDERED FAR PART 135 FLTS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CONDUCTED UNDER PART 91.

Narrative: I RECEIVED A LETTER LAST WEEK FROM THE FAA NOTIFYING ME I WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR NUMEROUS FLTS MADE IN A LEAR 35. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE BOTH PLTS FOR A COMPANY IN MEDFORD, OR CALLED ' COMPANY X' AND 'COMPANY Y.' WE PROVIDE PLT SVCS FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT COMPANIES THROUGH THE COMPANY Y. IN 04/XA/01 THE COMPANY Y LOST IT'S 135 CERTIFICATE AND WE WERE TOLD BY THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY ALL PLT SVCS WE WERE PERFORMING WERE PART 91 FLTS, I.E., THEY WERE FOR THE OWNERS OF THE ACFT OR LEGITIMATE LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE ON BOARD THE ACFT FOR THE INDIVIDUALS, WE SAW COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS, WE WERE FLYING. THE FAA IS NOW STATING THOSE FLTS WERE ACTUALLY CHARTER FLTS AND ARE THREATENING TO SUSPEND THE PLTS CERTIFICATES FOR 6 MONTHS (THERE WERE 8 PLTS INVOLVED ALTOGETHER). WE ARE COOPERATING IN THEIR INVESTIGATION AND HAVE SUBMITTED COPIES OF REQUESTED INFO. SINCE I HAVE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS IN THE LAST 10 DAYS, I'M HOPING YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE THIS CASE CONSIDERATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH THE RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA HAS INDICATED THAT THE RPTR WILL BE ISSUED A LETTER OF WARNING BECAUSE IT APPEARS BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE FLTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS COVERING FLTS FOR HIRE IN AIR COMMERCE, BUT THROUGH HER COOPERATION, THE SANCTION WOULD BE REDUCED TO A WARNING LETTER. HOWEVER, THERE WERE OTHER PLTS, INCLUDING HER EMPLOYER, WHO HAD NOT COOPERATED THAT WOULD BE GIVEN STRONG PLT CERTIFICATE SUSPENSIONS.

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.