Narrative:

Reporter checked WX for flight from abe, PA, to N89, ny, and found marginal VFR WX conditions at abe so departed by a SVFR departure clearance since, even though he was instrument rated and the aircraft met equipment requirement, he was not IFR current. After departure, he could see it was going to be difficult to remain VFR, however, he decided to continue northeast where it appeared better. Since conditions did not get better, he asked ATC approach for help in staying VFR and going to an airport that was VFR. In doing so, he tied up the time of a controller for 1 hour and was slow in responding to the controller's instructions. He did remain VFR and was vectored to rdg, PA, where a successful VFR landing was made, only after ATC gave him several choices and vectors before resolving the situation. ATC controller requested that reporter contact approach via telephone after landing. The approach control supervisor explained the workload placed on the ATC system since they did not have the ability to vector the pilot to remain in VFR conditions and requested his name, address, and pilot certificate number during the subsequent phone conversation. Reporter completed his narrative by stating that, in effect, he should have done differently by not departing SVFR and attempting to stay VFR in marginal conditions. Rather, be current IFR and go IFR or stay on the ground. He further stated that he remained VFR at all times.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA SINGLE ENG LAND ACFT SLOW TO COMPLY WITH CLRNCS DURING ATC ASSIST IN MARGINAL VFR FLT.

Narrative: RPTR CHKED WX FOR FLT FROM ABE, PA, TO N89, NY, AND FOUND MARGINAL VFR WX CONDITIONS AT ABE SO DEPARTED BY A SVFR DEP CLRNC SINCE, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS INST RATED AND THE ACFT MET EQUIP REQUIREMENT, HE WAS NOT IFR CURRENT. AFTER DEP, HE COULD SEE IT WAS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO REMAIN VFR, HOWEVER, HE DECIDED TO CONTINUE NE WHERE IT APPEARED BETTER. SINCE CONDITIONS DID NOT GET BETTER, HE ASKED ATC APCH FOR HELP IN STAYING VFR AND GOING TO AN ARPT THAT WAS VFR. IN DOING SO, HE TIED UP THE TIME OF A CTLR FOR 1 HR AND WAS SLOW IN RESPONDING TO THE CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS. HE DID REMAIN VFR AND WAS VECTORED TO RDG, PA, WHERE A SUCCESSFUL VFR LNDG WAS MADE, ONLY AFTER ATC GAVE HIM SEVERAL CHOICES AND VECTORS BEFORE RESOLVING THE SIT. ATC CTLR REQUESTED THAT RPTR CONTACT APCH VIA TELEPHONE AFTER LNDG. THE APCH CTL SUPVR EXPLAINED THE WORKLOAD PLACED ON THE ATC SYS SINCE THEY DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO VECTOR THE PLT TO REMAIN IN VFR CONDITIONS AND REQUESTED HIS NAME, ADDRESS, AND PLT CERTIFICATE NUMBER DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PHONE CONVERSATION. RPTR COMPLETED HIS NARRATIVE BY STATING THAT, IN EFFECT, HE SHOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY BY NOT DEPARTING SVFR AND ATTEMPTING TO STAY VFR IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS. RATHER, BE CURRENT IFR AND GO IFR OR STAY ON THE GND. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE REMAINED VFR AT ALL TIMES.

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.