Narrative:

On landing at teb, the aircraft departed runway 19 at low speed after touchdown, possibly due to a malfunctioning left brake, coupled with a strong right crosswind. No injuries were sustained by any occupant of the aircraft, and only minor damage was done to the aircraft. During the subsequent questioning by the local FSDO, they decided that this flight may have been operated under rules which would govern part 135 operations. This reporter, the owner/pilot of the aircraft, had thought to have been conducting the flight under part 91. The passenger had called the previous day to ask if I would be in the area, and if I could take them down to gai for a meeting that had suddenly been called. The company ceo was a friend of the owner/pilot's mother. During these initial contacts, it had been made clear to the company ceo that I was not a part 135 'charter' operator. I, had had previous plans to be in nj around this time to visit friends and relatives, including a side-trip to va. I informed the company owner that I would be happy to taken them to their meeting, as it would be a chance for more flying time, and a visit to a new airport. An offer of reimbursement for the operating costs of the aircraft was made by the company owner, based on the hourly costs of the actual costs of airplane ownership and flight. This offer was not accepted for this flight. However, on the one previous flight that had taken place, with the same company ceo, the same offer had been made and accepted, under the impression that so long as no profit was being made, and so long as the trip was primarily meant as a friendly gesture towards a friend, there was no violation of the part 135 regulations occurring. Since the local teb FSDO people have become involved, I have done additional research into the regulations that governed this or these flts. I have found that the regulations leave a large gap of 'gray area' regarding what a private-rated pilot can do regarding shared expenses, and what a licensed part 135 operator may do. There is no specific guidance given. The issue of reimbursing the cost of the aircraft, and how much is acceptable to the FAA, and whether accepting a flight in answer to a friendly request constitutes 'holding oneself out' for charter is very ambiguous in my opinion. I did not advertise myself in any way at any time. This reporter feels that this situation could have been avoided if the far's were added to, with wording specifically addressing what is and is not acceptable for both flight, and reimbursement for cost, where similar circumstances exists. Many other far's are specifically written in the negative, but the part 135 rules that have been allegedly broken are all written for part 135 operators, describing what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Nothing seems to exist specifically stating where the limits lie prior to acting as a part 135 operator without the appropriate certificate. Had this been more clear, I would not have accepted the original flight-cost reimbursement, and possibly not have done either flight, regardless of the 'favor for my mother's friend' dimension.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RWY EXCURSION BY A PA23 WITH 3 PAX ON BOARD THAT LATER THE FSDO DETERMINED WERE POSSIBLY ON BOARD UNDER AN ALLEGED ILLEGAL PART 135 OP, LNDG AT TEB, NJ.

Narrative: ON LNDG AT TEB, THE ACFT DEPARTED RWY 19 AT LOW SPD AFTER TOUCHDOWN, POSSIBLY DUE TO A MALFUNCTIONING L BRAKE, COUPLED WITH A STRONG R XWIND. NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED BY ANY OCCUPANT OF THE ACFT, AND ONLY MINOR DAMAGE WAS DONE TO THE ACFT. DURING THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING BY THE LCL FSDO, THEY DECIDED THAT THIS FLT MAY HAVE BEEN OPERATED UNDER RULES WHICH WOULD GOVERN PART 135 OPS. THIS RPTR, THE OWNER/PLT OF THE ACFT, HAD THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING THE FLT UNDER PART 91. THE PAX HAD CALLED THE PREVIOUS DAY TO ASK IF I WOULD BE IN THE AREA, AND IF I COULD TAKE THEM DOWN TO GAI FOR A MEETING THAT HAD SUDDENLY BEEN CALLED. THE COMPANY CEO WAS A FRIEND OF THE OWNER/PLT'S MOTHER. DURING THESE INITIAL CONTACTS, IT HAD BEEN MADE CLR TO THE COMPANY CEO THAT I WAS NOT A PART 135 'CHARTER' OPERATOR. I, HAD HAD PREVIOUS PLANS TO BE IN NJ AROUND THIS TIME TO VISIT FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, INCLUDING A SIDE-TRIP TO VA. I INFORMED THE COMPANY OWNER THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKEN THEM TO THEIR MEETING, AS IT WOULD BE A CHANCE FOR MORE FLYING TIME, AND A VISIT TO A NEW ARPT. AN OFFER OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE OPERATING COSTS OF THE ACFT WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY OWNER, BASED ON THE HOURLY COSTS OF THE ACTUAL COSTS OF AIRPLANE OWNERSHIP AND FLT. THIS OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR THIS FLT. HOWEVER, ON THE ONE PREVIOUS FLT THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, WITH THE SAME COMPANY CEO, THE SAME OFFER HAD BEEN MADE AND ACCEPTED, UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SO LONG AS NO PROFIT WAS BEING MADE, AND SO LONG AS THE TRIP WAS PRIMARILY MEANT AS A FRIENDLY GESTURE TOWARDS A FRIEND, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE PART 135 REGS OCCURRING. SINCE THE LCL TEB FSDO PEOPLE HAVE BECOME INVOLVED, I HAVE DONE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH INTO THE REGS THAT GOVERNED THIS OR THESE FLTS. I HAVE FOUND THAT THE REGS LEAVE A LARGE GAP OF 'GRAY AREA' REGARDING WHAT A PVT-RATED PLT CAN DO REGARDING SHARED EXPENSES, AND WHAT A LICENSED PART 135 OPERATOR MAY DO. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC GUIDANCE GIVEN. THE ISSUE OF REIMBURSING THE COST OF THE ACFT, AND HOW MUCH IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE FAA, AND WHETHER ACCEPTING A FLT IN ANSWER TO A FRIENDLY REQUEST CONSTITUTES 'HOLDING ONESELF OUT' FOR CHARTER IS VERY AMBIGUOUS IN MY OPINION. I DID NOT ADVERTISE MYSELF IN ANY WAY AT ANY TIME. THIS RPTR FEELS THAT THIS SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE FAR'S WERE ADDED TO, WITH WORDING SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING WHAT IS AND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR BOTH FLT, AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR COST, WHERE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS. MANY OTHER FAR'S ARE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN IN THE NEGATIVE, BUT THE PART 135 RULES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN ARE ALL WRITTEN FOR PART 135 OPERATORS, DESCRIBING WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED TO DO. NOTHING SEEMS TO EXIST SPECIFICALLY STATING WHERE THE LIMITS LIE PRIOR TO ACTING AS A PART 135 OPERATOR WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE. HAD THIS BEEN MORE CLR, I WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE ORIGINAL FLT-COST REIMBURSEMENT, AND POSSIBLY NOT HAVE DONE EITHER FLT, REGARDLESS OF THE 'FAVOR FOR MY MOTHER'S FRIEND' DIMENSION.

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.