Narrative:

Filing an IFR flight plan to an airport that is not equipped with a WX reporting facility operated by the national WX service. After researching the 1991 far's part 135.225 paragraph a. I interpreted this to state that I could legally file to and from an airport west/O WX reporting but could not begin an INS approach procedure at that airport. To further verify my interpretation a mr. X of the winston-salem FSDO was contacted by mr. Y who is also a concerned pilot of our certificate. Mr. Stated over the phone that he too interpreted this regarding (135.225) to state that it was legal to file to this airport IFR but not to begin an approach. Contributing factors: misinterp by myself and several others, including mr. X of the winston-salem FSDO of the regulations concerning part 135 INS procedures. How it was discovered: on further investigation I was informed by atl flight standards that they interpreted part 135.225 differently to state that filing IFR to an airport west/O WX reporting is in fact a violation. While winston-salem FSDO still states that this filing procedure is in fact not violation as long as an INS approach at that airport is not begun, which is how I and others also interpret this to state. Corrective action: after determining that I may have in fact violated some regulations of part 135 governing INS filing regulations, after hearing so many different interpretations of the same regulation, I found it in my best interest to terminate all times I had with FBO to prevent any further violations that may have occurred as a result. As of 6/1, I am no longer an employee of FBO.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER COMPLAINS OF OPPOSING INTERPS OF FEDERAL AVIATION REG BY 2 FSDO'S.

Narrative: FILING AN IFR FLT PLAN TO AN ARPT THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH A WX RPTING FAC OPERATED BY THE NATL WX SVC. AFTER RESEARCHING THE 1991 FAR'S PART 135.225 PARAGRAPH A. I INTERPRETED THIS TO STATE THAT I COULD LEGALLY FILE TO AND FROM AN ARPT W/O WX RPTING BUT COULD NOT BEGIN AN INS APCH PROC AT THAT ARPT. TO FURTHER VERIFY MY INTERP A MR. X OF THE WINSTON-SALEM FSDO WAS CONTACTED BY MR. Y WHO IS ALSO A CONCERNED PLT OF OUR CERTIFICATE. MR. STATED OVER THE PHONE THAT HE TOO INTERPRETED THIS REGARDING (135.225) TO STATE THAT IT WAS LEGAL TO FILE TO THIS ARPT IFR BUT NOT TO BEGIN AN APCH. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: MISINTERP BY MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHERS, INCLUDING MR. X OF THE WINSTON-SALEM FSDO OF THE REGS CONCERNING PART 135 INS PROCS. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION I WAS INFORMED BY ATL FLT STANDARDS THAT THEY INTERPRETED PART 135.225 DIFFERENTLY TO STATE THAT FILING IFR TO AN ARPT W/O WX RPTING IS IN FACT A VIOLATION. WHILE WINSTON-SALEM FSDO STILL STATES THAT THIS FILING PROC IS IN FACT NOT VIOLATION AS LONG AS AN INS APCH AT THAT ARPT IS NOT BEGUN, WHICH IS HOW I AND OTHERS ALSO INTERPRET THIS TO STATE. CORRECTIVE ACTION: AFTER DETERMINING THAT I MAY HAVE IN FACT VIOLATED SOME REGS OF PART 135 GOVERNING INS FILING REGS, AFTER HEARING SO MANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME REG, I FOUND IT IN MY BEST INTEREST TO TERMINATE ALL TIMES I HAD WITH FBO TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER VIOLATIONS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT. AS OF 6/1, I AM NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE OF FBO.

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.