Pilot with aerial mapping job needed to fly at 6000 ft and advised by approach control that he may b...

Attributes
ACN	402530
Time
Date	199805
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : fmh
State Reference	MA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : pvd tower : jfk
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	PA-23-250 Aztec
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise other cruise other
Route In Use	approach : circling
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 216 flight time total : 20396 flight time type : 3705
ASRS Report	402530
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

Aerial mapping, north, south flight lines in the above location. Working with cape approach control with flight following at 6000 ft, an IFR altitude. The controller asked us a number of times if we could change our altitude to a VFR altitude. I explained that to fly at the scale that we needed, we needed to be at 6000 ft. I told him we would accept vectors if needed. I asked him if he could move the IFR traffic up or down 1000 ft. He said that the traffic normally goes through the hyannis area at 6000 ft. Far part 91.159 says that while maneuvering I can be at any altitude, and at no time did he say that he could not accommodate us. In fact, he said that if it had been another wkend, he would have run us off and said no, we couldn't do the job at 6000 ft. The reason I'm writing this is cape approach asked me to come up on a discrete frequency so that I could talk to the supervisor, and he implied that I might be in violation of the regulations. I was authority/authorized to be where I was and legal to be there because ATC never said I couldn't be there!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT WITH AERIAL MAPPING JOB NEEDED TO FLY AT 6000 FT AND ADVISED BY APCH CTL THAT HE MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FARS FLYING VFR AT AN IFR ALT.

Narrative: AERIAL MAPPING, N, S FLT LINES IN THE ABOVE LOCATION. WORKING WITH CAPE APCH CTL WITH FLT FOLLOWING AT 6000 FT, AN IFR ALT. THE CTLR ASKED US A NUMBER OF TIMES IF WE COULD CHANGE OUR ALT TO A VFR ALT. I EXPLAINED THAT TO FLY AT THE SCALE THAT WE NEEDED, WE NEEDED TO BE AT 6000 FT. I TOLD HIM WE WOULD ACCEPT VECTORS IF NEEDED. I ASKED HIM IF HE COULD MOVE THE IFR TFC UP OR DOWN 1000 FT. HE SAID THAT THE TFC NORMALLY GOES THROUGH THE HYANNIS AREA AT 6000 FT. FAR PART 91.159 SAYS THAT WHILE MANEUVERING I CAN BE AT ANY ALT, AND AT NO TIME DID HE SAY THAT HE COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE US. IN FACT, HE SAID THAT IF IT HAD BEEN ANOTHER WKEND, HE WOULD HAVE RUN US OFF AND SAID NO, WE COULDN'T DO THE JOB AT 6000 FT. THE REASON I'M WRITING THIS IS CAPE APCH ASKED ME TO COME UP ON A DISCRETE FREQ SO THAT I COULD TALK TO THE SUPVR, AND HE IMPLIED THAT I MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGS. I WAS AUTH TO BE WHERE I WAS AND LEGAL TO BE THERE BECAUSE ATC NEVER SAID I COULDN'T BE THERE!

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.

Pilot with aerial mapping job needed to fly at 6000 ft and advised by approach control that he may be in violation of FARS flying VFR at an IFR altitude.