Narrative:

This day I flew an small transport from ftw to lit on a ferry permit given by the FAA. Little rock forcast was for ceilings of 2000' or better all day. Ft worth WX was clear. My ferry permit read that this permit allowed flight under day VFR only. There is not a problem with it being day, but there was a problem staying VFR once I got north of txk. I tried very hard to stay underneath the ceiling, but due to the ceiling being lower than forecast and declining visibility, I felt that in the interest of safety, I chose to get an IFR clearance to lit. I contacted ZME and got a clearance to lit to fly at 7000'. Upon arrival at lit the ceiling was called 1200' overcast and 4 mi visibility. I did not intentionally fly IFR, but I feel that I did the safest thing possible. The flight was uneventful, but upon landing after taxiing to FBO at lit the FAA inspector was doing routine ramp checks and I was checked, but nothing was said about the flight itself. The ramp inspection was just a check of the aircraft's documents. The inspector said he ramped me to see if it was a part 135 flight or not. I received the IFR clearance because I was faced with the decision of potential violation of far 91.79 or violating the provisions of the ferry permit and the safest thing I thought was to get the IFR clearance and not try to stay VFR in unforecast deteriorating WX condition. I feel that my decision was a good one. The flight was conducted more safely than it would have been down on the deck in low visibility. I don't feel that I should be subject to penalty for using my good judgement.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLEW IFR IN AN UNCERTIFIED ACFT.

Narrative: THIS DAY I FLEW AN SMT FROM FTW TO LIT ON A FERRY PERMIT GIVEN BY THE FAA. LITTLE ROCK FORCAST WAS FOR CEILINGS OF 2000' OR BETTER ALL DAY. FT WORTH WX WAS CLR. MY FERRY PERMIT READ THAT THIS PERMIT ALLOWED FLT UNDER DAY VFR ONLY. THERE IS NOT A PROB WITH IT BEING DAY, BUT THERE WAS A PROB STAYING VFR ONCE I GOT N OF TXK. I TRIED VERY HARD TO STAY UNDERNEATH THE CEILING, BUT DUE TO THE CEILING BEING LOWER THAN FORECAST AND DECLINING VISIBILITY, I FELT THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, I CHOSE TO GET AN IFR CLRNC TO LIT. I CONTACTED ZME AND GOT A CLRNC TO LIT TO FLY AT 7000'. UPON ARR AT LIT THE CEILING WAS CALLED 1200' OVCST AND 4 MI VISIBILITY. I DID NOT INTENTIONALLY FLY IFR, BUT I FEEL THAT I DID THE SAFEST THING POSSIBLE. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL, BUT UPON LNDG AFTER TAXIING TO FBO AT LIT THE FAA INSPECTOR WAS DOING ROUTINE RAMP CHKS AND I WAS CHKED, BUT NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE FLT ITSELF. THE RAMP INSPECTION WAS JUST A CHK OF THE ACFT'S DOCUMENTS. THE INSPECTOR SAID HE RAMPED ME TO SEE IF IT WAS A PART 135 FLT OR NOT. I RECEIVED THE IFR CLRNC BECAUSE I WAS FACED WITH THE DECISION OF POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF FAR 91.79 OR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FERRY PERMIT AND THE SAFEST THING I THOUGHT WAS TO GET THE IFR CLRNC AND NOT TRY TO STAY VFR IN UNFORECAST DETERIORATING WX CONDITION. I FEEL THAT MY DECISION WAS A GOOD ONE. THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED MORE SAFELY THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN ON THE DECK IN LOW VISIBILITY. I DON'T FEEL THAT I SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR USING MY GOOD JUDGEMENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.