INSTRUCTOR PLT FOR AN FBO FLEW A C172 ON A XCOUNTRY FLT WITH A PAX PRIOR TO FIRST FLYING AN AFTER MAINT TEST FLT AND RECORDING IT IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK.

Narrative

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I AM IN VIOLATION OF CFR #91.407(B) 'OP AFTER MAINT; PREVENTIVE MAINT; REBUILDING; OR ALTERATION.' IN ANY CASE; IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL. I AM A CFI WITH AN FBO BASED AT HEF IN MANASSAS; VA. FBO CHIEF OF MAINT HAD ASSIGNED ME (ON MAR/XA/01) TO FLY C172 TO HGR TO PICK UP A RUDDER (FOR A C152) THAT HAD BEEN REPAIRED THERE. ON THE TRIP BACK TO HEF; I WAS TO LAND AT JYO TO PICK UP A LNDG GEAR SWITCH FOR FBO'S BE76. ALSO; I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY CIRCLES AROUND THE ARPT FOR 10-15 MINS PRIOR TO DEPARTING THE HEF AREA FOR HGR IN ORDER TO ENSURE EVERYTHING WAS ALRIGHT WITH THE AIRPLANE. I BROUGHT ANOTHER LICENSED PVT PLT WITH ME ON THIS FLT (A PAX OF FAIRFAX; VA) TO SERVE DUTY AS A CREW MEMBER (REF 91.407(B)). I HAD PAX PERFORM THE TASK OF OCCASIONALLY FLYING THE AIRPLANE WHILE I CONSULTED WRITTEN INFO PERTAINING TO THE OP OF THE ENG FOLLOWING REPAIR. THIS INFO INCLUDED (BUT WAS NOT LIMITED TO) OPERATING GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO RPM; DENSITY ALT; PERCENT PWR; AND CLOSED-THROTTLE DSCNTS. PAX; WHEN NOT FLYING; PERFORMED DUTIES RANGING FROM READING ALOUD INFO FROM THE ABOVE-MENTIONED WRITTEN ENG-OPERATING GUIDELINES TO KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR AIR TFC WHILE I SCANNED ENG GAUGES TO ASSIST ME WITH LOADING THE RUDDER INTO THE AIRPLANE AT HGR (NOT A SIMPLE TASK!). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT MADE CLR TO ME BY FBO CHIEF OF MAINT THAT THIS WAS A 'RETURN TO SVC' TEST FLT. THE FACT THAT I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY XCOUNTRY TO HGR ALSO ELIMINATED IN MY MIND THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS A 'RETURN TO SVC' FLT. THIS SIT WAS CAUSED BY A LACK OF SOLID COM SKILLS BTWN MYSELF AND THE MAINT CHIEF. FORTUNATELY; BY DEFAULT; I ASSIGNED DUTIES TO PAX TO PERFORM DURING THE FLT. I BELIEVE THAT HE SERVED AS A REQUIRED PLT FLC MEMBER. IN SUMMARY; ALTHOUGH IN SPIRIT I MAY HAVE VIOLATED 91.407 (ALBEIT; INADVERTENTLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY); I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WAS IN TECHNICAL VIOLATION. THE REASONING FOLLOWS. I ASSIGNED DUTIES TO A 'CREW MEMBER' (REF DEFINITION IN FAR 1.1) THEREFORE; PAX CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PAX. ALSO; I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED IN 'A MANNER THAT MAY HAVE APPRECIABLY CHANGED ITS FLT CHARACTERISTICS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED ITS OP INFLT' (REF 91.407(B)).