FLC OF ATX SMT ACFT QUESTIONED WHETHER A REPOSITIONING FLT HAD LEGAL RWY LENGTH FOR THE OP CONDUCTED.

Narrative

ACFT DEPARTED MIAMI INTL FOR FT LAUDERDALE EXECUTIVE ARPT VFR. UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH FXE TWR THEY ADVISED US THERE WAS A DISABLED ACFT ON RWY 26 (6000 FT LONG); AND REQUESTED US TO RPT L BASE FOR RWY 31 (4000 FT LONG). WE RPTED AS REQUESTED; AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AFTER LNDG; AND UPON CHKING LNDG DISTANCE CHARTS; WE FOUND 4000 FT WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET FAR PART 91 REQUIREMENTS; BUT NOT ADEQUATE FOR FAR PART 135 OPS. SOME CONFUSION HAS ARISEN AS TO WHETHER YOU MUST MEET FAR PART 135 LNDG DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ON THE 'DEAD LEGS' OF A FAR PART 135 TRIP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS ADVISED THAT SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT WAS FOR REPOSITIONING OF THE ACFT (FERRY FLT) WAS NOT TRANSPORTING PERSONS OR PROPERTY FOR HIRE; FAR PART 135 RULES DID NOT APPLY. THEREFORE; ONLY THE PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS OF THE ACFT REQUIRED UNDER PART 91 APPLIED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 227847: ON NOV/SUN/92 WE POSITIONED OUR ACFT; AN SMT JET; TO MIAMI INTL FOR WHAT WE WERE TOLD WAS A TRIP TO CURACO AND BACK BUT WHEN WE GOT DOWN TO MIAMI WE MET THE MAN ORGANIZING THE TRIP AND WE FOUND THAT WE WERE TO ALSO GO TO SUMI. WE HAD ALREADY TOPPED OFF AND WE HAD TO DEADHEAD TO FXE TO PICK UP THE PLATES OF SUMI. WE TOOK OFF VFR AND WENT BACK TO FXE. UPON ARR; RWY 26 WAS CLOSED BY A DISABLED ACFT SO THE CAPT ELECTED TO LAND OVERWT AND HAVE MAINT INSPECT.