Narrative:

While en route from bli to clm to pick up a customer areas of low ceilings prevailed in the puget sound. Clm sa was approximately 5000 ft ceilings bli sa was about 1400 ft ceilings. A direct route between these 2 points would have to fly over a stretch of water 28 NM across, electing not to go this route; but a much safer route along the coast of half a dozen islands would leave me within gliding distance at any one point along this route. Approximately 3 mi northwest of anacortes airport I received the call from whidbey naval air station's approach control facility, 'radar contact.' no report of traffic was issued to my recollection, however, later that day an FAA representative had phoned my employer and relayed a message of a complaint of an aircraft passing between 2 aircraft on a left base leg to runway 28 at anacortes. In addition I always make it a habit to announce my intentions on the CTAF in the local area when I intend to pass close to another airport. These 2 aircraft (charter flts as well) have squawk codes also. I find it hard to believe that between the 3 planes in contact with the radar facility, I did not receive a traffic advisory call, and to my knowledge there was no violation of any far. As a charter pilot I am required to remain within gliding distance to land and or at least 500 ft AGL; radar shows my aircraft 600 ft MSL or above at all times. There is nothing that I know of that I could have done safer, except to cancel the flight or take another route not so close to our competitors. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter states he received call from FAA rep about 1 1/2 weeks after the event. After discussion with FSDO insp was told the tapes would be reviewed and isp would get back to him. He has heard nothing since. He thus believes there was no violation, as he felt originally.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CHARTER FLT IN RADAR CONTACT REMAINING VFR ACCUSED OF CLOSE PROX OF OTHER ACFT.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE FROM BLI TO CLM TO PICK UP A CUSTOMER AREAS OF LOW CEILINGS PREVAILED IN THE PUGET SOUND. CLM SA WAS APPROX 5000 FT CEILINGS BLI SA WAS ABOUT 1400 FT CEILINGS. A DIRECT RTE BTWN THESE 2 POINTS WOULD HAVE TO FLY OVER A STRETCH OF WATER 28 NM ACROSS, ELECTING NOT TO GO THIS RTE; BUT A MUCH SAFER RTE ALONG THE COAST OF HALF A DOZEN ISLANDS WOULD LEAVE ME WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE AT ANY ONE POINT ALONG THIS RTE. APPROX 3 MI NW OF ANACORTES ARPT I RECEIVED THE CALL FROM WHIDBEY NAVAL AIR STATION'S APCH CTL FACILITY, 'RADAR CONTACT.' NO RPT OF TFC WAS ISSUED TO MY RECOLLECTION, HOWEVER, LATER THAT DAY AN FAA REPRESENTATIVE HAD PHONED MY EMPLOYER AND RELAYED A MESSAGE OF A COMPLAINT OF AN ACFT PASSING BTWN 2 ACFT ON A L BASE LEG TO RWY 28 AT ANACORTES. IN ADDITION I ALWAYS MAKE IT A HABIT TO ANNOUNCE MY INTENTIONS ON THE CTAF IN THE LCL AREA WHEN I INTEND TO PASS CLOSE TO ANOTHER ARPT. THESE 2 ACFT (CHARTER FLTS AS WELL) HAVE SQUAWK CODES ALSO. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT BTWN THE 3 PLANES IN CONTACT WITH THE RADAR FACILITY, I DID NOT RECEIVE A TFC ADVISORY CALL, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF ANY FAR. AS A CHARTER PLT I AM REQUIRED TO REMAIN WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE TO LAND AND OR AT LEAST 500 FT AGL; RADAR SHOWS MY ACFT 600 FT MSL OR ABOVE AT ALL TIMES. THERE IS NOTHING THAT I KNOW OF THAT I COULD HAVE DONE SAFER, EXCEPT TO CANCEL THE FLT OR TAKE ANOTHER RTE NOT SO CLOSE TO OUR COMPETITORS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATES HE RECEIVED CALL FROM FAA REP ABOUT 1 1/2 WKS AFTER THE EVENT. AFTER DISCUSSION WITH FSDO INSP WAS TOLD THE TAPES WOULD BE REVIEWED AND ISP WOULD GET BACK TO HIM. HE HAS HEARD NOTHING SINCE. HE THUS BELIEVES THERE WAS NO VIOLATION, AS HE FELT ORIGINALLY.

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.