GA small aircraft accused of violating far for low flight over hangar.

Attributes
ACN	191570
Time
Date	199110
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : acy
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	agl bound lower : 150 agl bound upper : 150
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : acy artcc : zma
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 3500 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	191570
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	observation : observer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Our organization performs research and development in the area of aircraft navigation and lndgs system. The mission in question involved flying precision approachs to a virtual runway situated parallel to and offset laterally from the main runway. One of the flight paths took the aircraft very close to the roof of a hangar building which contained offices. The flight was conducted under VFR and visibility was not a factor. He knew that the flight path was close to the hangar and were extremely cautious in our overflt. After 2 runs over the hangar, we were told to land and see the airport manager. In the course of our discussion, we found out that: it was the opinion of the manager that action could be taken against us based on far 91.13 and/or far 91.119. In our fervor to accomplish the mission, we neglected to carefully examine the regulations in light of our flight path over the hangar building. We had not properly coordinated our test operation with the airport management. We had, however, coordinated with air traffic. We were informed of the proper coordination procedures at that point.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA ACCUSED OF VIOLATING FAR FOR LOW FLT OVER HANGAR.

Narrative: OUR ORGANIZATION PERFORMS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA OF ACFT NAV AND LNDGS SYS. THE MISSION IN QUESTION INVOLVED FLYING PRECISION APCHS TO A VIRTUAL RWY SITUATED PARALLEL TO AND OFFSET LATERALLY FROM THE MAIN RWY. ONE OF THE FLT PATHS TOOK THE ACFT VERY CLOSE TO THE ROOF OF A HANGAR BUILDING WHICH CONTAINED OFFICES. THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER VFR AND VISIBILITY WAS NOT A FACTOR. HE KNEW THAT THE FLT PATH WAS CLOSE TO THE HANGAR AND WERE EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS IN OUR OVERFLT. AFTER 2 RUNS OVER THE HANGAR, WE WERE TOLD TO LAND AND SEE THE ARPT MGR. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, WE FOUND OUT THAT: IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE MGR THAT ACTION COULD BE TAKEN AGAINST US BASED ON FAR 91.13 AND/OR FAR 91.119. IN OUR FERVOR TO ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION, WE NEGLECTED TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE REGS IN LIGHT OF OUR FLT PATH OVER THE HANGAR BUILDING. WE HAD NOT PROPERLY COORDINATED OUR TEST OP WITH THE ARPT MGMNT. WE HAD, HOWEVER, COORDINATED WITH AIR TFC. WE WERE INFORMED OF THE PROPER COORD PROCS AT THAT POINT.

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.