Narrative:

Provided pilot services to a company who had rented an aircraft from someone else. I do not have a part 135 certificate nor does the provider (operator) of the aircraft. Operator of the aircraft is convinced flight was not part 135 operation, however, I have obtained both legal and FAA opinion to the contrary after the flight. FAA opinion on sits such as this has changed considerably over the past 10 yrs. FAA needs to establish clearer and more distinct guidelines, and make these guidelines more available to pilots.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VIOLATION OF FARS PART 135 IN PAX SVC FLT.

Narrative: PROVIDED PLT SVCS TO A COMPANY WHO HAD RENTED AN ACFT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. I DO NOT HAVE A PART 135 CERTIFICATE NOR DOES THE PROVIDER (OPERATOR) OF THE ACFT. OPERATOR OF THE ACFT IS CONVINCED FLT WAS NOT PART 135 OP, HOWEVER, I HAVE OBTAINED BOTH LEGAL AND FAA OPINION TO THE CONTRARY AFTER THE FLT. FAA OPINION ON SITS SUCH AS THIS HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY OVER THE PAST 10 YRS. FAA NEEDS TO ESTABLISH CLEARER AND MORE DISTINCT GUIDELINES, AND MAKE THESE GUIDELINES MORE AVAILABLE TO PLTS.

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.