PLT OF A CESSNA 310 WAS RAMP CHKED BY THE FAA FOR COMPLAINT OF CARRYING PAX FOR HIRE. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPENSATION EXCHANGED; NO VIOLATION OF THE FARS WAS DISCLOSED.
Synopsis
PLT OF A CESSNA 310 WAS RAMP CHKED BY THE FAA FOR COMPLAINT OF CARRYING PAX FOR HIRE. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPENSATION EXCHANGED; NO VIOLATION OF THE FARS WAS DISCLOSED.
Narrative
ON MAY/MON/96 ABOUT XX00 AM; I RECEIVED A RAMP CHK BY AN FAA INSPECTOR WHO ASSUMED I WAS CARRYING PAX FOR HIRE. THIS ASSUMPTION WAS THE RESULT OF A DISGRUNTLED FBO/PERSON WHO CALLED THE FAA AND RPTED MY FLT TO WASHINGTON NATIONAL ARPT WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS AND PURPOSE OF THE FLT. THE FACTS OF THE FLT ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ACFT OWNER; WHOM I HAVE KNOWN AND GIVEN FLT INSTRUCTION FOR A NUMBER OF YRS; ASKED ME TO FLY WITH HIM FOR TRAINING INTO THE DC AREA. HE WAS ALSO TO CARRY 2 MEMBERS FROM THE NORTH EASTERN; NC (WHO ARE VOLUNTEERS DEDICATED IN HELPING THE COMMUNITY IN INDUSTRIAL GROWTH) TO WASHINGTON FOR A MEETING WITH POLITICAL OFFICIALS CONCERNING OUR REGION. HRS BEFORE WE WERE TO DEPART EDENTON; NC; ADVISED ME HE COULD NOT GO ON THE FLT DUE TO ANOTHER COMMITMENT. HE ASKED ME TO TAKE THE 2 PAX AS PLANNED; AND WE WOULD FLY TO DCA ARPT AT A LATER DATE FOR TRAINING EXPERIENCE. THIS FLT WAS NOT FOR COMPENSATION REGARDING MYSELF AS THE PLT; NOR WAS COMPENSATION CONSIDERED FOR ACFT OWNER. THIS FLT WAS ENTIRELY FLOWN AS A DONATION/CHARITY TO NC; AS A SVC TO THE COMMUNITY. I WAS SHOCKED AND STARTLED BY THE TARGETED INQUIRY BY THE FAA INSPECTOR; ALTHOUGH I REALIZE HE WAS JUST DOING HIS JOB. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THE FLT WAS NOT FOR HIRE OR COMPENSATION AND HE ALSO TALKED TO THE PAX LATER THAT DAY; AFTER RETURNING FROM THEIR MEETING. THEY INFORMED HIM ALSO THAT THE FLT WAS A DONATION AND NOT FOR HIRE OR COMPENSATION. I DID NOT TALK TO THE FAA INSPECTOR AGAIN AFTER THE RAMP CHK WAS COMPLETED. HIS OPINION AT THAT TIME WAS; NO VIOLATION HAD BEEN MADE. THE INSPECTOR DID NOT ATTEMPT TO TALK TO ME LATER THAT DAY AFTER HE QUESTIONED THE PAX; NOR DID HE INDICATE TO THEM THERE WAS ANY REASON NOT TO CONTINUE THE FLT UNDER PART 91 AS PLANNED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD NOT HEARD FURTHER FROM THE FAA REGARDING THIS MATTER.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.