Narrative:

Pilot of a single-engine turboprop; on an instrument approach to ZZZ; landed shortly after I landed with a J3 cub under basic VFR rules in class G airspace. The pilot of the turboprop stated that the J3 cub was turning onto the taxiway from runway 27 when be came out of the clouds on the GPS approach to runway 27. The pilot of the turboprop insisted that I had no right to be on the airport or in the vicinity of the airport with a VFR-only aircraft when the ceilings are reported to be below 1;000 ft. I disagreed with him and an argument ensued about whether or not the airspace from the surface to 700 ft AGL at ZZZ is controlled or uncontrolled airspace. No resolution of the matter occurred and the turbine pilot copied the north number of the J3 cub presumably to report the issue to the FAA. I was fully in compliance with 14CFR 91.126; 91.127; 91.155 and also verified on the VFR sectional chart that the class east airspace at ZZZ does not extend to the surface; but starts at 700 ft above the ground and the visibility was greater than 3 statute miles. There was sufficient separation between the IFR and VFR traffic and no incursion or near-miss occurred. Class east airspace is misinterpreted by many pilots especially around the airport environment. Due to advanced GPS navigation equipment; lower minimum descent altitudes are being established at many non-towered airports bringing some IFR aircraft into class G airspace. Better education and training for IFR pilots of technically advanced aircraft specific to transitioning from controlled airspace to uncontrolled airspace will help pilots better understand the possible scenarios and conflicts with VFR traffic that may be present when IFR aircraft fly into non-towered airports.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: J-3 pilot reported being accused of flying a VFR-only aircraft in IMC by a single-engine turboprop pilot who had just landed from an instrument approach. J-3 pilot pointed out that he was legal since the airport was Class G Airspace up to 700 FT AGL.

Narrative: Pilot of a single-engine turboprop; on an instrument approach to ZZZ; landed shortly after I landed with a J3 Cub under basic VFR rules in Class G Airspace. The pilot of the turboprop stated that the J3 Cub was turning onto the taxiway from Runway 27 when be came out of the clouds on the GPS approach to Runway 27. The pilot of the turboprop insisted that I had no right to be on the airport or in the vicinity of the airport with a VFR-only aircraft when the ceilings are reported to be below 1;000 FT. I disagreed with him and an argument ensued about whether or not the airspace from the surface to 700 FT AGL at ZZZ is controlled or uncontrolled airspace. No resolution of the matter occurred and the turbine pilot copied the N number of the J3 Cub presumably to report the issue to the FAA. I was fully in compliance with 14CFR 91.126; 91.127; 91.155 and also verified on the VFR sectional chart that the Class E airspace at ZZZ does not extend to the surface; but starts at 700 FT above the ground and the visibility was greater than 3 statute miles. There was sufficient separation between the IFR and VFR traffic and no incursion or near-miss occurred. Class E airspace is misinterpreted by many pilots especially around the airport environment. Due to advanced GPS navigation equipment; lower Minimum Descent Altitudes are being established at many non-towered airports bringing some IFR aircraft into Class G Airspace. Better education and training for IFR pilots of technically advanced aircraft specific to transitioning from controlled airspace to uncontrolled airspace will help pilots better understand the possible scenarios and conflicts with VFR traffic that may be present when IFR aircraft fly into non-towered airports.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.