Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 9G1.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 9G1
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored to airport 9G1; I (as pilot not flying) was monitoring and communicating on the CTAF frequency for the destination airport. I was unable to contact the FBO personnel; but did contact a helicopter; who was parked on the approach end of Runway 35 waiting to depart. Approximately 10 miles east of 9G1; the PIC elected to cancel the IFR portion of the flight and continue VFR. The PIC had briefed a visual approach; backed up electronically with an Omni Bearing Selector (OBS); and landing on Runway 35 based on the calm winds and the position of the drop-off location for the passenger on-board.Approximately five (5) miles east of the airport; I called on CTAF to relay our intentions to the helicopter and confirm his position and intentions. The helicopter said that he was waiting for an IFR release. I responded that we just cancelled with Pittsburg Approach and that he should have his clearance. At this time; the PIC noted the rising terrain west of the airport and that he was going to fly a right traffic pattern for Runway 35 instead of over-flying the airport and enter left-traffic; as previously brief. The helicopter said that he was moving off the runway to the grass area east of the runway so that we may land Runway 35.As we turned south for the right downwind leg; I could see that the helicopter was moving off to the side of the runway. Once turning final; the PIC (pilot-flying) noted that the helicopter was clear of the runway and was continuing to land Runway 35. I made all appropriate downwind; base; and final calls on CTAF and the helicopter called that he was clear of the runway. We landed on Runway 35 with a safe distance between us (aircraft landing) and helicopter (parked in grass.)The issue was with a woman (who never identified herself) who believed that our landing created a safety problem. She questioned me if I contacted the airport prior to landing. I told her that I did try on the CTAF frequency but no one answered; but the helicopter did; and that we were in constant contact with the helicopter. She did not accept this; even when another woman (possibly her assistant) [said] that she did not have the radio.Putting myself as an observer on the ground; I could see how an aircraft landing and a helicopter might seem close; based on the straight line view that they had; and a distorted view of perspective based on relative size and the distance. But the aircraft; and helicopter were in constant contact; both found the landing situation/ distance acceptable.Unidentified observers on the ground; without radios to listen to the aircraft coordination should not make safety decisions after-the-fact.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: A flight crew was in communication with a helicopter that was working in the pattern at the airport where the crew was to land. The helicopter pilot was parked in a grass area next to the runway waiting IFR release. The plane landed. An unidentified woman took exception to the distance between the plane and the helicopter and would not accept explanations.