Narrative:

I was departing the san francisco bay area for bfl carrying passenger as an far part 135 charter operator. My aircraft is a single engine C210 equipped with dual alternators and a dual vacuum system (but not yet certified under new single engine IFR regulations for far part 135 operation). Ceilings were reported 2000-3000 ft at my departure and 7000 ft at my destination with conditions improving shortly beyond my departure area. There is no WX reporting for much of my flight route. Approximately 20 mins after departure, conditions had not improved as forecast. WX was still MVFR and raining at times. I needed to cross a small mountain range, but was concerned about flying down an unfamiliar valley in MVFR. My other option was to turn back toward my departure, where WX had deteriorated. An additional alternative was to simply file IFR and continue the flight, which is what I did. A yr ago, filing IFR in this aircraft, in the exact same situation was perfectly legal, but since aug/98, the FAA's elimination of 'limited IFR' for single engine aircraft operating under far part 135 has made this a violation of regulations. I was disgusted that a rule change would force me to compromise the safety of a flight unnecessarily. The aircraft was fully IFR equipped and as a pilot, I am rated and current. Were I to abide by the new regulations for single engine IFR, I would be forced to scud-run in the vicinity of hazardous terrain. It concerns me that in an effort to make single engine IFR safer for charter and air taxi operations, the FAA has forced pilots to fly dangerously. I wonder how many accidents have been caused by these new regulations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN AIR TAXI PAX FLT IN A C210 OPERATED UNDER AN INST FLT PLAN WHEN THE ACFT WAS NOT CERTIFIED FOR IFR FLT IN THE ACR OP SPECS.

Narrative: I WAS DEPARTING THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA FOR BFL CARRYING PAX AS AN FAR PART 135 CHARTER OPERATOR. MY ACFT IS A SINGLE ENG C210 EQUIPPED WITH DUAL ALTERNATORS AND A DUAL VACUUM SYS (BUT NOT YET CERTIFIED UNDER NEW SINGLE ENG IFR REGS FOR FAR PART 135 OP). CEILINGS WERE RPTED 2000-3000 FT AT MY DEP AND 7000 FT AT MY DEST WITH CONDITIONS IMPROVING SHORTLY BEYOND MY DEP AREA. THERE IS NO WX RPTING FOR MUCH OF MY FLT RTE. APPROX 20 MINS AFTER DEP, CONDITIONS HAD NOT IMPROVED AS FORECAST. WX WAS STILL MVFR AND RAINING AT TIMES. I NEEDED TO CROSS A SMALL MOUNTAIN RANGE, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT FLYING DOWN AN UNFAMILIAR VALLEY IN MVFR. MY OTHER OPTION WAS TO TURN BACK TOWARD MY DEP, WHERE WX HAD DETERIORATED. AN ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE WAS TO SIMPLY FILE IFR AND CONTINUE THE FLT, WHICH IS WHAT I DID. A YR AGO, FILING IFR IN THIS ACFT, IN THE EXACT SAME SIT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL, BUT SINCE AUG/98, THE FAA'S ELIMINATION OF 'LIMITED IFR' FOR SINGLE ENG ACFT OPERATING UNDER FAR PART 135 HAS MADE THIS A VIOLATION OF REGS. I WAS DISGUSTED THAT A RULE CHANGE WOULD FORCE ME TO COMPROMISE THE SAFETY OF A FLT UNNECESSARILY. THE ACFT WAS FULLY IFR EQUIPPED AND AS A PLT, I AM RATED AND CURRENT. WERE I TO ABIDE BY THE NEW REGS FOR SINGLE ENG IFR, I WOULD BE FORCED TO SCUD-RUN IN THE VICINITY OF HAZARDOUS TERRAIN. IT CONCERNS ME THAT IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SINGLE ENG IFR SAFER FOR CHARTER AND AIR TAXI OPS, THE FAA HAS FORCED PLTS TO FLY DANGEROUSLY. I WONDER HOW MANY ACCIDENTS HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THESE NEW REGS.

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.