Narrative:

I had just been checked out to fly for a part 135 commuter in alaska. Since there is heavy traffic in the summer season, part of my training was to read the information in the local pamphlet provided by the juneau FSDO pertaining to flight altitudes. The pertinent part reads that 'traffic northbound should fly at altitudes of 1500 or 2500 ft' and 'traffic sbound should fly at altitudes of 1000, 2000 or 3000 ft.' most pilots had interpreted this local rule to be applicable to altitudes above 3000 ft. The incident happened when I was flying northbound from juneau to haines at 3500 ft. Another aircraft was flying from haines to juneau also at 3500 ft. We passed each other at a distance of about 500 ft horizontally. We discussed on the radio what is the correct altitude. Several other aircraft joined in on the conversation. Some agreed with me and others pointed out part 91.159. There was an FAA inspector on the other aircraft. The chief pilot of my company has contacted the other chief pilots of the local companies and to clarify what altitudes should be flown. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he was given a warning letter by the FAA but everyone learned from this incident. Many pilots thought as he did that the local procedures prevailed over the altitude cruising rule. They do not. Most everyone now understands that below 3000 ft the northbound, sbound traffic procedures are in effect, above that the far is active. The incident apparently sparked a great deal of discussion locally.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER PLT OF A PA32-300 HAS NMAC WITH SAME TYPE ACFT FLYING OPPOSITE DIRECTION AT SAME ALT.

Narrative: I HAD JUST BEEN CHKED OUT TO FLY FOR A PART 135 COMMUTER IN ALASKA. SINCE THERE IS HVY TFC IN THE SUMMER SEASON, PART OF MY TRAINING WAS TO READ THE INFO IN THE LCL PAMPHLET PROVIDED BY THE JUNEAU FSDO PERTAINING TO FLT ALTS. THE PERTINENT PART READS THAT 'TFC NBOUND SHOULD FLY AT ALTS OF 1500 OR 2500 FT' AND 'TFC SBOUND SHOULD FLY AT ALTS OF 1000, 2000 OR 3000 FT.' MOST PLTS HAD INTERPRETED THIS LCL RULE TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALTS ABOVE 3000 FT. THE INCIDENT HAPPENED WHEN I WAS FLYING NBOUND FROM JUNEAU TO HAINES AT 3500 FT. ANOTHER ACFT WAS FLYING FROM HAINES TO JUNEAU ALSO AT 3500 FT. WE PASSED EACH OTHER AT A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 500 FT HORIZLY. WE DISCUSSED ON THE RADIO WHAT IS THE CORRECT ALT. SEVERAL OTHER ACFT JOINED IN ON THE CONVERSATION. SOME AGREED WITH ME AND OTHERS POINTED OUT PART 91.159. THERE WAS AN FAA INSPECTOR ON THE OTHER ACFT. THE CHIEF PLT OF MY COMPANY HAS CONTACTED THE OTHER CHIEF PLTS OF THE LCL COMPANIES AND TO CLARIFY WHAT ALTS SHOULD BE FLOWN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE WAS GIVEN A WARNING LETTER BY THE FAA BUT EVERYONE LEARNED FROM THIS INCIDENT. MANY PLTS THOUGHT AS HE DID THAT THE LCL PROCS PREVAILED OVER THE ALT CRUISING RULE. THEY DO NOT. MOST EVERYONE NOW UNDERSTANDS THAT BELOW 3000 FT THE NBOUND, SBOUND TFC PROCS ARE IN EFFECT, ABOVE THAT THE FAR IS ACTIVE. THE INCIDENT APPARENTLY SPARKED A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION LOCALLY.

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.