Atx, part 135 operator reporter pilot voices concern over interpretation of federal aviation regulat...

Attributes
ACN	177099
Time
Date	199104
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : uox airport : jan
State Reference	MS
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mdw
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach ground : preflight landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	177099
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	observation : air carrier inspector
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : assigned or threatened penalties
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
Airport	other physical facility procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

On 4/91, I departed jan for uox. I filed an IFR flight plan. My understanding of the far's was that you could file IFR to the non WX reporting airport as long as you didn't shoot the approach. I fly for a 135 operator. I was ramp checked by an FAA inspector (mr. A) upon landing back in jan. He stated I could possibly receive a violation for this. I had been informed a few days earlier by my new director of operations (I'm in the process of switching 135 operators) during his indoctrination class that I could file IFR into a non WX reporting airport as long as I didn't shoot the approach. He was informed of this by another FAA inspector (mr. B), who works in the very same FAA office in jackson. There were 2 witnesses to mr. A clearly making this statement. I believe the regulation governing this is very vague. Most pilots file this way, and it was my understanding that it was legal and proper, based on normal procedures and the FAA inspector's statement. Also, common sense tells one it is safer to file IFR than VFR.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX, PART 135 OPERATOR REPORTER PLT VOICES CONCERN OVER INTERP OF FEDERAL AVIATION REG PERTAINING TO FILING IFR TO AN ARPT THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE A WX REPORTING SERVICE. WAS RAMP CHECKED BY FAA ACI AND THREATENED WITH VIOLATION FOR DOING SO.

Narrative: ON 4/91, I DEPARTED JAN FOR UOX. I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FAR'S WAS THAT YOU COULD FILE IFR TO THE NON WX RPTING ARPT AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T SHOOT THE APCH. I FLY FOR A 135 OPERATOR. I WAS RAMP CHKED BY AN FAA INSPECTOR (MR. A) UPON LNDG BACK IN JAN. HE STATED I COULD POSSIBLY RECEIVE A VIOLATION FOR THIS. I HAD BEEN INFORMED A FEW DAYS EARLIER BY MY NEW DIRECTOR OF OPS (I'M IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING 135 OPERATORS) DURING HIS INDOCTRINATION CLASS THAT I COULD FILE IFR INTO A NON WX RPTING ARPT AS LONG AS I DIDN'T SHOOT THE APCH. HE WAS INFORMED OF THIS BY ANOTHER FAA INSPECTOR (MR. B), WHO WORKS IN THE VERY SAME FAA OFFICE IN JACKSON. THERE WERE 2 WITNESSES TO MR. A CLEARLY MAKING THIS STATEMENT. I BELIEVE THE REG GOVERNING THIS IS VERY VAGUE. MOST PLTS FILE THIS WAY, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS LEGAL AND PROPER, BASED ON NORMAL PROCS AND THE FAA INSPECTOR'S STATEMENT. ALSO, COMMON SENSE TELLS ONE IT IS SAFER TO FILE IFR THAN VFR.

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

Atx, part 135 operator reporter pilot voices concern over interpretation of federal aviation regulation pertaining to filing IFR to an airport that does not provide a WX reporting service. Was ramp checked by FAA aci and threatened with violation for doing so.