Narrative:

Prior to entering reykjavik oceanic cta, I was asked if I was qualified in mnps -- being trained at air carrier a. In mnps procedures, I responded in the affirmative (we were at FL310). Assuming that I had met all the requirements and was allowed to continue at FL310 on a space available basis in the mnps area, I continued to bikf at FL310. Because of stronger than predicted winds at lower altitudes, I requested FL310 from bikf to cyyr. Since this was a ferry flight for a new air carrier B fk-100, I was not aware that I needed an letter of authorization for flight above FL275 as long as I was qualified in mnps procedures and complied with all of these procedures in positive tracking and flight following on the IRS in the mnps area. Since I met all of the requirements and followed the procedures in the mnps area, I thought I was legal to fly in mnps on a space available basis as requested. After arrival at kmdw, the FAA asked why I had flown in mnps without an letter of authorization. I stated that I had been trained and qualified in mnps and was allowed to fly above FL275 on a space available basis and, because of more extreme headwinds, required FL310 for fuel economy and safety. The letter of authorization is really hidden in far 91 and even so, I feel when asked 'are you mnps qualified' by ATC, if you are allowed to continue, then you are considered to have met all the requirements in the mnps airspace. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the crux of this matter is the philosophy of far 91.705 and far 91 appendix C section 3. Appendix C allows an aircraft access to the mnps if there is space available. 91.705 seems to say that there must be a letter of authorization for each flight that is not a regularly scheduled flight. An aci serving the reporter's air carrier questioned the reporter's entry into the mnps without a letter of authorization and sent a letter threatening violation proceedings. When the reporter showed the aci appendix C, the aci sent another letter saying that there would be a 'warning letter' put in the reporter's records for 2 yrs and that there was no violation. The reporter believes that the aci is after his company, not necessarily him. The reporter is over age 60 and flies ferry flts under far 91, not far 121.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALLEGED FAR VIOLATION.

Narrative: PRIOR TO ENTERING REYKJAVIK OCEANIC CTA, I WAS ASKED IF I WAS QUALIFIED IN MNPS -- BEING TRAINED AT ACR A. IN MNPS PROCS, I RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE (WE WERE AT FL310). ASSUMING THAT I HAD MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AT FL310 ON A SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS IN THE MNPS AREA, I CONTINUED TO BIKF AT FL310. BECAUSE OF STRONGER THAN PREDICTED WINDS AT LOWER ALTS, I REQUESTED FL310 FROM BIKF TO CYYR. SINCE THIS WAS A FERRY FLT FOR A NEW ACR B FK-100, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT I NEEDED AN LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR FLT ABOVE FL275 AS LONG AS I WAS QUALIFIED IN MNPS PROCS AND COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THESE PROCS IN POSITIVE TRACKING AND FLT FOLLOWING ON THE IRS IN THE MNPS AREA. SINCE I MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND FOLLOWED THE PROCS IN THE MNPS AREA, I THOUGHT I WAS LEGAL TO FLY IN MNPS ON A SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS AS REQUESTED. AFTER ARR AT KMDW, THE FAA ASKED WHY I HAD FLOWN IN MNPS WITHOUT AN LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION. I STATED THAT I HAD BEEN TRAINED AND QUALIFIED IN MNPS AND WAS ALLOWED TO FLY ABOVE FL275 ON A SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS AND, BECAUSE OF MORE EXTREME HEADWINDS, REQUIRED FL310 FOR FUEL ECONOMY AND SAFETY. THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS REALLY HIDDEN IN FAR 91 AND EVEN SO, I FEEL WHEN ASKED 'ARE YOU MNPS QUALIFIED' BY ATC, IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, THEN YOU ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MNPS AIRSPACE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF FAR 91.705 AND FAR 91 APPENDIX C SECTION 3. APPENDIX C ALLOWS AN ACFT ACCESS TO THE MNPS IF THERE IS SPACE AVAILABLE. 91.705 SEEMS TO SAY THAT THERE MUST BE A LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR EACH FLT THAT IS NOT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED FLT. AN ACI SERVING THE RPTR'S ACR QUESTIONED THE RPTR'S ENTRY INTO THE MNPS WITHOUT A LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION AND SENT A LETTER THREATENING VIOLATION PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE RPTR SHOWED THE ACI APPENDIX C, THE ACI SENT ANOTHER LETTER SAYING THAT THERE WOULD BE A 'WARNING LETTER' PUT IN THE RPTR'S RECORDS FOR 2 YRS AND THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE ACI IS AFTER HIS COMPANY, NOT NECESSARILY HIM. THE RPTR IS OVER AGE 60 AND FLIES FERRY FLTS UNDER FAR 91, NOT FAR 121.

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.