Narrative:

Was hired to do pilot services for family whose son was an accident victim. Patient needed stretcher to return to his home in chattanooga, tn, from tupelo, ms. The FBO, who rented the small transport, removed the 4 aft seats and borrowed a stretcher from nearby military until stretcher was secured by cargo belts in airplane and stretcher had belt for patient. However, upon being ramp checked I was advised that I had to have stc for stretcher and new empty weight (weight and balance data) because 4 aft seats were removed. Since this is not the type flying I normally do, I was not familiar with far's pertaining to this flight. I would certainly suggest that any pilot pressed into this type service take time to familiarize himself with applicable far's--no matter how big the rush! Never, never allow yourself to be too rushed to research every aspect of a flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: has not heard any more information from the FAA. The inspection by the FAA occurred after arrival in cha. Was not familiar with this type operation and had merely agreed to fly the aircraft which had been rented by the injured party. Assumed the operation manual covered the planned operation. Supplemental information from acn 97585: stretcher was said not to be approved for that aircraft. However, the FAA did not check weight & balance in operating manual nor did he closely observe the stretcher.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SEATS REMOVED IN SMT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF STRETCHER CASE. NO NEW WEIGHT AND BALANCE.

Narrative: WAS HIRED TO DO PLT SVCS FOR FAMILY WHOSE SON WAS AN ACCIDENT VICTIM. PATIENT NEEDED STRETCHER TO RETURN TO HIS HOME IN CHATTANOOGA, TN, FROM TUPELO, MS. THE FBO, WHO RENTED THE SMT, REMOVED THE 4 AFT SEATS AND BORROWED A STRETCHER FROM NEARBY MIL UNTIL STRETCHER WAS SECURED BY CARGO BELTS IN AIRPLANE AND STRETCHER HAD BELT FOR PATIENT. HOWEVER, UPON BEING RAMP CHKED I WAS ADVISED THAT I HAD TO HAVE STC FOR STRETCHER AND NEW EMPTY WT (WT AND BAL DATA) BECAUSE 4 AFT SEATS WERE REMOVED. SINCE THIS IS NOT THE TYPE FLYING I NORMALLY DO, I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH FAR'S PERTAINING TO THIS FLT. I WOULD CERTAINLY SUGGEST THAT ANY PLT PRESSED INTO THIS TYPE SVC TAKE TIME TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH APPLICABLE FAR'S--NO MATTER HOW BIG THE RUSH! NEVER, NEVER ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE TOO RUSHED TO RESEARCH EVERY ASPECT OF A FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: HAS NOT HEARD ANY MORE INFO FROM THE FAA. THE INSPECTION BY THE FAA OCCURRED AFTER ARR IN CHA. WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS TYPE OPERATION AND HAD MERELY AGREED TO FLY THE ACFT WHICH HAD BEEN RENTED BY THE INJURED PARTY. ASSUMED THE OPERATION MANUAL COVERED THE PLANNED OPERATION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 97585: STRETCHER WAS SAID NOT TO BE APPROVED FOR THAT ACFT. HOWEVER, THE FAA DID NOT CHK WT & BAL IN OPERATING MANUAL NOR DID HE CLOSELY OBSERVE THE STRETCHER.

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.