Narrative:

The problem to be discussed in this report is the inadvertent entrance into IMC during a night VFR FAA part 135 chart flight. Factors contributing to this encounter were unforecast WX conditions while en route. In my opinion, the minimums set forth by far's for part 135 VFR day and night flts are by far too low. For this particular flight, the WX conditions for the entire route and flight time were not to exceed the WX minimums set forth in far 135.203 and 135.205. The destination, sioux falls, sd, had the lowest WX forecast of all, reporting points in the entire flight route, yet still above minimums. I observed a scattered cloud layer which was lower than the 1500' broken layer reported in the last hourly sequence for ainsworth. Shortly thereafter we encountered IMC. While maintaining VFR, I proceeded to call ATC ZMP, which I was monitoring at that time. Center advised they were unable to provide an IFR clearance due to an active MOA further ahead and higher of the planned route and altitude. Calling columbus FSS through the remote frequency at ainsworth (122.25) was followed with no reply. Once again we encountered IMC and proceeded with a 180 degree turn back to VFR conditions. Both the current sectional and WAC aeronautical charts indicated this frequency, which I later learned through columbus FSS had been changed. Once in VFR conditions, we proceeded to the ainsworth airport to land. No NOTAMS covering this change in frequency had been given during the preflight briefing with FSS. It is not my policy nor our company's to push the WX. Current and forecast WX conditions are all a pilot has to go be to make a go or no go decision. Following this occurrence, we have revised our company procedures re: VFR only flts to higher minimums, especially for night flts. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states center was not busy at time of his call, but requested him to file with FSS. Frequency on current chart had not been changed, so unable to contact. Transmission to center had been poor, so decided since he was even lower than when first attempted, he would not try again. He would have liked to have filed IFR from the start, but the regulations do not allow part 135 single engine IFR with passenger. Company has since raised the minimums for night VFR single engine operations. Reporter added that the active MOA center referred to was not on his route of flight. Does not understand their reluctance to give clearance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR TAXI PLT ENCOUNTERS IMC ON VFR FLT. IFR CLRNC ATTEMPTED, TOLD UNABLE. PERFORMS 180 DEGREE TURN BACK TO VFR CONDITIONS AND LANDS.

Narrative: THE PROB TO BE DISCUSSED IN THIS RPT IS THE INADVERTENT ENTRANCE INTO IMC DURING A NIGHT VFR FAA PART 135 CHART FLT. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS ENCOUNTER WERE UNFORECAST WX CONDITIONS WHILE ENRTE. IN MY OPINION, THE MINIMUMS SET FORTH BY FAR'S FOR PART 135 VFR DAY AND NIGHT FLTS ARE BY FAR TOO LOW. FOR THIS PARTICULAR FLT, THE WX CONDITIONS FOR THE ENTIRE ROUTE AND FLT TIME WERE NOT TO EXCEED THE WX MINIMUMS SET FORTH IN FAR 135.203 AND 135.205. THE DEST, SIOUX FALLS, SD, HAD THE LOWEST WX FORECAST OF ALL, RPTING POINTS IN THE ENTIRE FLT ROUTE, YET STILL ABOVE MINIMUMS. I OBSERVED A SCATTERED CLOUD LAYER WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE 1500' BROKEN LAYER RPTED IN THE LAST HOURLY SEQUENCE FOR AINSWORTH. SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE ENCOUNTERED IMC. WHILE MAINTAINING VFR, I PROCEEDED TO CALL ATC ZMP, WHICH I WAS MONITORING AT THAT TIME. CENTER ADVISED THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE AN IFR CLRNC DUE TO AN ACTIVE MOA FURTHER AHEAD AND HIGHER OF THE PLANNED ROUTE AND ALT. CALLING COLUMBUS FSS THROUGH THE REMOTE FREQ AT AINSWORTH (122.25) WAS FOLLOWED WITH NO REPLY. ONCE AGAIN WE ENCOUNTERED IMC AND PROCEEDED WITH A 180 DEG TURN BACK TO VFR CONDITIONS. BOTH THE CURRENT SECTIONAL AND WAC AERONAUTICAL CHARTS INDICATED THIS FREQ, WHICH I LATER LEARNED THROUGH COLUMBUS FSS HAD BEEN CHANGED. ONCE IN VFR CONDITIONS, WE PROCEEDED TO THE AINSWORTH ARPT TO LAND. NO NOTAMS COVERING THIS CHANGE IN FREQ HAD BEEN GIVEN DURING THE PREFLT BRIEFING WITH FSS. IT IS NOT MY POLICY NOR OUR COMPANY'S TO PUSH THE WX. CURRENT AND FORECAST WX CONDITIONS ARE ALL A PLT HAS TO GO BE TO MAKE A GO OR NO GO DECISION. FOLLOWING THIS OCCURRENCE, WE HAVE REVISED OUR COMPANY PROCS RE: VFR ONLY FLTS TO HIGHER MINIMUMS, ESPECIALLY FOR NIGHT FLTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES CENTER WAS NOT BUSY AT TIME OF HIS CALL, BUT REQUESTED HIM TO FILE WITH FSS. FREQ ON CURRENT CHART HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED, SO UNABLE TO CONTACT. XMISSION TO CENTER HAD BEEN POOR, SO DECIDED SINCE HE WAS EVEN LOWER THAN WHEN FIRST ATTEMPTED, HE WOULD NOT TRY AGAIN. HE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE FILED IFR FROM THE START, BUT THE REGS DO NOT ALLOW PART 135 SINGLE ENG IFR WITH PAX. COMPANY HAS SINCE RAISED THE MINIMUMS FOR NIGHT VFR SINGLE ENG OPS. RPTR ADDED THAT THE ACTIVE MOA CENTER REFERRED TO WAS NOT ON HIS ROUTE OF FLT. DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR RELUCTANCE TO GIVE CLRNC.

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.