Narrative:

I have recently achieved my multi-engine instrument rating as another way to build multi-engine time. 'Catch 22' prevails in that you need flight experience to get a job flying twins or a job flying twins for flight experience. Keeping safety in my mind all the time, before departure from mth in VFR conditions, I decided to call FSS for a WX briefing. Level 5 thunderstorms were reported en route and VFR was not recommended. NOTAMS were checked. Also being familiar with the rules of airspace and recently being briefed at key west's FAA seminar of enforcement of rules for filing flight plans across the ADIZ. I decided to file IFR. As usual, prior to operating in IFR conditions, I did my dual VOR check in accordance with far 91.254(C), which was within tolerance. I decided by the briefing that it would be best to deviate to the west of course if necessary. En route, ATC cleared me to 'deviate as necessary,' which I did. The backcourse localizer for runway 36 was in use at tpa and VFR conditions prevailed. A visibility approach was accepted. The flight was uneventful. I was greeted by an FAA ramp check. Prior to stepping out of the aircraft my 4 passenger got out of the aircraft. The FAA rep made sure to immediately ask for a receipt for the transportation and a copy was made. As I got out of the aircraft the man idented himself as an FAA rep of the st pete office and proceeded questioning my passenger for identify and then allowed them to leave. I mentioned that I could give them more flight instruction in the future. He proceeded to do a standard ramp check with me, certificate and medical checked. All airworthiness checks were met. All questions were answered. He asked about documentation of my VOR check, which I wrote down in his presence that it had been accomplished. The last sign off that was done was not aboard the aircraft, as it was not necessary to be. He asked me what chart I used for navigation on my flight plan. I showed him. My approach charts ending date was 5/9/89. My clearance was approved as filed and deviations were made in accordance with ATC. No changes were made for this route to the latest additions or changenotices for this route. All requirements were met for a far part 91 flight, which I had informed the passenger prior to initial takeoff that we, 'abc air,' incorporated, were not certified part 135 as yet, but I was a qualified ATP and safe PIC under far part 61 and 91. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter had recently obtained multi-engine rating and was desirous of building up twin engine time, realizing that 1 way to do it was to either be hired by a commercial operator or fly for no compensation. Since it takes experience to get hired, the 'no compensation' route looked the best. This pilot is also a CFI and 1 of his students was trying to obtain both an FBO operation at the departure airport as well as getting papers approved from the FAA administrator for a part 135 operation. The management personnel at that departure airport were not only unfriendly but vengeful. The FAA was particular and detailed. About 6 months prior to this flight from airport 'X' to airport 'Y,' the owner of 'abc air,' incorporated (subject pilot's student) received money for a charter from 4 men who wanted to be taken from airport 'Y' to airport 'X' for a fishing trip. This was agreed to on the expectation that part 135 approval was going to be obtained. Almost, but no quite. Pilot accepted the assignment to fly 'Y' to 'X' to 'Y' west/O receiving any compensation. Unknown person at airport 'X' called the miami office of the FAA re: this operation and thus the inspector from the local airport 'Y' office showed up for an FAA ramp check. Several discrepancies showed up during this check. 1) that the VOR check done at airport 'X' was not in written evidence in the aircraft log as required by far 91. 2) that there was a receipt for transportation and although all of the papers needed for flight, such as flight plan, pilot license, medical, maps, en route charts, etc were in order, the inspector knew that the operating organization did not have a certificate of operation in accordance with far 135. The owner and pilot both knew of this far 135 discrepancy, but decided to operate thisone flight anyway. Pilot states that there were no singular events that made the flight unsafe and it was routine and professional in every aspect, except it wasn't legal. Letters from the FAA area office have gone out to the pilot and the owner of 'abc air,' incorporated, citing the VOR and part 135 violation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT PASSENGER OPERATION FOR HIRE WITHOUT OPERATING CERTIFICATE UNDER FEDERAL AVIATION REG 135.

Narrative: I HAVE RECENTLY ACHIEVED MY MULTI-ENG INSTR RATING AS ANOTHER WAY TO BUILD MULTI-ENG TIME. 'CATCH 22' PREVAILS IN THAT YOU NEED FLT EXPERIENCE TO GET A JOB FLYING TWINS OR A JOB FLYING TWINS FOR FLT EXPERIENCE. KEEPING SAFETY IN MY MIND ALL THE TIME, BEFORE DEP FROM MTH IN VFR CONDITIONS, I DECIDED TO CALL FSS FOR A WX BRIEFING. LEVEL 5 TSTMS WERE RPTED ENRTE AND VFR WAS NOT RECOMMENDED. NOTAMS WERE CHKED. ALSO BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES OF AIRSPACE AND RECENTLY BEING BRIEFED AT KEY WEST'S FAA SEMINAR OF ENFORCEMENT OF RULES FOR FILING FLT PLANS ACROSS THE ADIZ. I DECIDED TO FILE IFR. AS USUAL, PRIOR TO OPERATING IN IFR CONDITIONS, I DID MY DUAL VOR CHK IAW FAR 91.254(C), WHICH WAS WITHIN TOLERANCE. I DECIDED BY THE BRIEFING THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO DEVIATE TO THE W OF COURSE IF NECESSARY. ENRTE, ATC CLRED ME TO 'DEVIATE AS NECESSARY,' WHICH I DID. THE BACKCOURSE LOC FOR RWY 36 WAS IN USE AT TPA AND VFR CONDITIONS PREVAILED. A VIS APCH WAS ACCEPTED. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. I WAS GREETED BY AN FAA RAMP CHK. PRIOR TO STEPPING OUT OF THE ACFT MY 4 PAX GOT OUT OF THE ACFT. THE FAA REP MADE SURE TO IMMEDIATELY ASK FOR A RECEIPT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND A COPY WAS MADE. AS I GOT OUT OF THE ACFT THE MAN IDENTED HIMSELF AS AN FAA REP OF THE ST PETE OFFICE AND PROCEEDED QUESTIONING MY PAX FOR IDENT AND THEN ALLOWED THEM TO LEAVE. I MENTIONED THAT I COULD GIVE THEM MORE FLT INSTRUCTION IN THE FUTURE. HE PROCEEDED TO DO A STANDARD RAMP CHK WITH ME, CERTIFICATE AND MEDICAL CHKED. ALL AIRWORTHINESS CHKS WERE MET. ALL QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. HE ASKED ABOUT DOCUMENTATION OF MY VOR CHK, WHICH I WROTE DOWN IN HIS PRESENCE THAT IT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THE LAST SIGN OFF THAT WAS DONE WAS NOT ABOARD THE ACFT, AS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO BE. HE ASKED ME WHAT CHART I USED FOR NAV ON MY FLT PLAN. I SHOWED HIM. MY APCH CHARTS ENDING DATE WAS 5/9/89. MY CLRNC WAS APPROVED AS FILED AND DEVIATIONS WERE MADE IAW ATC. NO CHANGES WERE MADE FOR THIS ROUTE TO THE LATEST ADDITIONS OR CHANGENOTICES FOR THIS ROUTE. ALL REQUIREMENTS WERE MET FOR A FAR PART 91 FLT, WHICH I HAD INFORMED THE PAX PRIOR TO INITIAL TKOF THAT WE, 'ABC AIR,' INC, WERE NOT CERTIFIED PART 135 AS YET, BUT I WAS A QUALIFIED ATP AND SAFE PIC UNDER FAR PART 61 AND 91. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR HAD RECENTLY OBTAINED MULTI-ENG RATING AND WAS DESIROUS OF BUILDING UP TWIN ENG TIME, REALIZING THAT 1 WAY TO DO IT WAS TO EITHER BE HIRED BY A COMMERCIAL OPERATOR OR FLY FOR NO COMPENSATION. SINCE IT TAKES EXPERIENCE TO GET HIRED, THE 'NO COMPENSATION' ROUTE LOOKED THE BEST. THIS PLT IS ALSO A CFI AND 1 OF HIS STUDENTS WAS TRYING TO OBTAIN BOTH AN FBO OPERATION AT THE DEP ARPT AS WELL AS GETTING PAPERS APPROVED FROM THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR FOR A PART 135 OPERATION. THE MGMNT PERSONNEL AT THAT DEP ARPT WERE NOT ONLY UNFRIENDLY BUT VENGEFUL. THE FAA WAS PARTICULAR AND DETAILED. ABOUT 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS FLT FROM ARPT 'X' TO ARPT 'Y,' THE OWNER OF 'ABC AIR,' INC (SUBJECT PLT'S STUDENT) RECEIVED MONEY FOR A CHARTER FROM 4 MEN WHO WANTED TO BE TAKEN FROM ARPT 'Y' TO ARPT 'X' FOR A FISHING TRIP. THIS WAS AGREED TO ON THE EXPECTATION THAT PART 135 APPROVAL WAS GOING TO BE OBTAINED. ALMOST, BUT NO QUITE. PLT ACCEPTED THE ASSIGNMENT TO FLY 'Y' TO 'X' TO 'Y' W/O RECEIVING ANY COMPENSATION. UNKNOWN PERSON AT ARPT 'X' CALLED THE MIAMI OFFICE OF THE FAA RE: THIS OPERATION AND THUS THE INSPECTOR FROM THE LCL ARPT 'Y' OFFICE SHOWED UP FOR AN FAA RAMP CHK. SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES SHOWED UP DURING THIS CHK. 1) THAT THE VOR CHK DONE AT ARPT 'X' WAS NOT IN WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN THE ACFT LOG AS REQUIRED BY FAR 91. 2) THAT THERE WAS A RECEIPT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND ALTHOUGH ALL OF THE PAPERS NEEDED FOR FLT, SUCH AS FLT PLAN, PLT LICENSE, MEDICAL, MAPS, ENRTE CHARTS, ETC WERE IN ORDER, THE INSPECTOR KNEW THAT THE OPERATING ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 135. THE OWNER AND PLT BOTH KNEW OF THIS FAR 135 DISCREPANCY, BUT DECIDED TO OPERATE THISONE FLT ANYWAY. PLT STATES THAT THERE WERE NO SINGULAR EVENTS THAT MADE THE FLT UNSAFE AND IT WAS ROUTINE AND PROFESSIONAL IN EVERY ASPECT, EXCEPT IT WASN'T LEGAL. LETTERS FROM THE FAA AREA OFFICE HAVE GONE OUT TO THE PLT AND THE OWNER OF 'ABC AIR,' INC, CITING THE VOR AND PART 135 VIOLATION.

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.