Narrative:

Event: flying SVFR (part 91.157) and not complying with min altitudes while carrying passenger (part 135.203(a)(1)). Background: my company chief pilot was having his fltchk (far part 135.293 and 135.299 single engine sea). During the oral part he was asked by the inspector about SVFR in a control zone. The chief pilot replied, '1 statute mi and clear of clouds' and also pointed out the restriction in part 135.203(a)(1) that prohibits the carriage of passenger below 500 ft AGL. To his (chief pilot's) astonishment, the inspector replied that, 'that doesn't apply any more, now it's 1 set of rules, 1 mi clear of clouds goes for everybody'. The chief pilot asked him to clarify that he actually meant that passenger can be carried below 500 AGL. The inspector replied that you can carry passenger at any altitude within a control zone as long as you comply with part 91.157, even while operating under part 135! When I came to work, my plane was already loaded up with passenger and cargo. ATIS reported the WX to be visibility 1 mi, 200 ft overcast, sky obscured. After a lengthy 'debate' with the company president, I took off. The company president made it very clear that I 'have to' go since the WX is legal, 'even the FAA inspector says it's ok'. Naturally, I violated far part 135.203, even though I was told I was legal. I should not have taken off, but I was told by company president that there is no time to contact the FSDO to have things clarified. Either I fly or I'm looking for a new job.... Under pressure, I made the wrong decision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA TOOK OFF WITH PAX WX 200 CEILING VISIBILITY 1 MI, SVFR, ANC FSDO INSPECTOR DECLARED MINS LEGAL, PLT DISAGREED BUT FLEW.

Narrative: EVENT: FLYING SVFR (PART 91.157) AND NOT COMPLYING WITH MIN ALTS WHILE CARRYING PAX (PART 135.203(A)(1)). BACKGROUND: MY COMPANY CHIEF PLT WAS HAVING HIS FLTCHK (FAR PART 135.293 AND 135.299 SINGLE ENG SEA). DURING THE ORAL PART HE WAS ASKED BY THE INSPECTOR ABOUT SVFR IN A CTL ZONE. THE CHIEF PLT REPLIED, '1 STATUTE MI AND CLR OF CLOUDS' AND ALSO POINTED OUT THE RESTRICTION IN PART 135.203(A)(1) THAT PROHIBITS THE CARRIAGE OF PAX BELOW 500 FT AGL. TO HIS (CHIEF PLT'S) ASTONISHMENT, THE INSPECTOR REPLIED THAT, 'THAT DOESN'T APPLY ANY MORE, NOW IT'S 1 SET OF RULES, 1 MI CLR OF CLOUDS GOES FOR EVERYBODY'. THE CHIEF PLT ASKED HIM TO CLARIFY THAT HE ACTUALLY MEANT THAT PAX CAN BE CARRIED BELOW 500 AGL. THE INSPECTOR REPLIED THAT YOU CAN CARRY PAX AT ANY ALT WITHIN A CTL ZONE AS LONG AS YOU COMPLY WITH PART 91.157, EVEN WHILE OPERATING UNDER PART 135! WHEN I CAME TO WORK, MY PLANE WAS ALREADY LOADED UP WITH PAX AND CARGO. ATIS RPTED THE WX TO BE VISIBILITY 1 MI, 200 FT OVERCAST, SKY OBSCURED. AFTER A LENGTHY 'DEBATE' WITH THE COMPANY PRESIDENT, I TOOK OFF. THE COMPANY PRESIDENT MADE IT VERY CLR THAT I 'HAVE TO' GO SINCE THE WX IS LEGAL, 'EVEN THE FAA INSPECTOR SAYS IT'S OK'. NATURALLY, I VIOLATED FAR PART 135.203, EVEN THOUGH I WAS TOLD I WAS LEGAL. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN OFF, BUT I WAS TOLD BY COMPANY PRESIDENT THAT THERE IS NO TIME TO CONTACT THE FSDO TO HAVE THINGS CLARIFIED. EITHER I FLY OR I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB.... UNDER PRESSURE, I MADE THE WRONG DECISION.

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.