Narrative:

IFR from sju to stx with 19 passenger, captain at the controls. Cleared from en route altitude of 7000 to 2300', reported aircraft in sight about 15 mi northwest of landfall at stx. Cleared for visual approach, no traffic observed and to contact stx tower. Cleared to land by stx tower, no reported traffic. At about 2500' MSL and 5 mi west of landfall, the first officer asked my permission to offer the spare headset to a passenger in the forward observer seat. (Cabin confign: 19 seats, no reserved jumpseat, all flts encouraged to have cockpit doors open for cabin surveillance.) the first officer alerted him to approaching points of interest on western stx that they had discussed during the boarding. Passenger's wife then extended a small autofocus camera and asked me to photograph them. First officer took the controls while I obliged. I resumed control and descent, landing west/O further communication from tower or with passenger. Among the passenger was an FAA inspector, not identified to me, who later submitted a citation for infraction of far 135.100. Although we had temporarily leveled off during the descent, and were VMC west/O known or observed traffic reported by the cerap and tower, the aircraft was not in cruise flight and I permitted as well as engaged in activities not related to proper conduct of flight. While the open cockpit did not cause the infraction cited, it does require extra vigilance--not afforded in this instance--to keep cabin distrs at bay and to prevent the appearance of unsafe practice. Conjecture: is a part 135 pilot who cruises at 1500' and describes points of interest to passenger while modifying altitude for terrain and cloud avoidance exempt from penalty or certificate action, while a part 135 pilot in the same airspace and doing the same thing but in the descent phase is not exempt? How do we factor pilot discretion into the equation?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER FLT CREW ISSUED CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AVIATION REG.

Narrative: IFR FROM SJU TO STX WITH 19 PAX, CAPT AT THE CONTROLS. CLRED FROM ENRTE ALT OF 7000 TO 2300', RPTED ACFT IN SIGHT ABOUT 15 MI NW OF LANDFALL AT STX. CLRED FOR VISUAL APCH, NO TFC OBSERVED AND TO CONTACT STX TWR. CLRED TO LAND BY STX TWR, NO RPTED TFC. AT ABOUT 2500' MSL AND 5 MI W OF LANDFALL, THE F/O ASKED MY PERMISSION TO OFFER THE SPARE HEADSET TO A PAX IN THE FORWARD OBSERVER SEAT. (CABIN CONFIGN: 19 SEATS, NO RESERVED JUMPSEAT, ALL FLTS ENCOURAGED TO HAVE COCKPIT DOORS OPEN FOR CABIN SURVEILLANCE.) THE F/O ALERTED HIM TO APCHING POINTS OF INTEREST ON WESTERN STX THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED DURING THE BOARDING. PAX'S WIFE THEN EXTENDED A SMALL AUTOFOCUS CAMERA AND ASKED ME TO PHOTOGRAPH THEM. F/O TOOK THE CONTROLS WHILE I OBLIGED. I RESUMED CONTROL AND DSCNT, LNDG W/O FURTHER COM FROM TWR OR WITH PAX. AMONG THE PAX WAS AN FAA INSPECTOR, NOT IDENTIFIED TO ME, WHO LATER SUBMITTED A CITATION FOR INFRACTION OF FAR 135.100. ALTHOUGH WE HAD TEMPORARILY LEVELED OFF DURING THE DSCNT, AND WERE VMC W/O KNOWN OR OBSERVED TFC RPTED BY THE CERAP AND TWR, THE ACFT WAS NOT IN CRUISE FLT AND I PERMITTED AS WELL AS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES NOT RELATED TO PROPER CONDUCT OF FLT. WHILE THE OPEN COCKPIT DID NOT CAUSE THE INFRACTION CITED, IT DOES REQUIRE EXTRA VIGILANCE--NOT AFFORDED IN THIS INSTANCE--TO KEEP CABIN DISTRS AT BAY AND TO PREVENT THE APPEARANCE OF UNSAFE PRACTICE. CONJECTURE: IS A PART 135 PLT WHO CRUISES AT 1500' AND DESCRIBES POINTS OF INTEREST TO PAX WHILE MODIFYING ALT FOR TERRAIN AND CLOUD AVOIDANCE EXEMPT FROM PENALTY OR CERTIFICATE ACTION, WHILE A PART 135 PLT IN THE SAME AIRSPACE AND DOING THE SAME THING BUT IN THE DSCNT PHASE IS NOT EXEMPT? HOW DO WE FACTOR PLT DISCRETION INTO THE EQUATION?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.