Narrative:

I checked NOTAMS before the flight. Noted runway 18/36 closed. Parallel taxiway was to be used for landing. I then called dispatch and was patched to the chief pilot. Went over details with him and cleared to go. The NOTAM states category a and B aircraft only. I planned and departed so as to have a vref of less than 120 KTS. We canceled IFR 10 mi southwest of jac and made a visual on runway 18. After landing the local sheriff asked to speak with me. He said we were not on a list and he had to make a report. I asked what this was in regards to and he stated only category a and B aircraft can land at this airport. I stated that we landed at a weight that gave us a speed below category B limits. Gave him a copy of weight and balance to show landing weight. I then looked up part 97 (standard instrument approach procedures) 97.3(B) states categories are predicted on maximum certificated landing weight. The hawker-8001P is category C. Before departure I determined that conditions at the airport would be VFR. This, as far as I understand, does not include the a and B limitation because we canceled IFR and entered the pattern and landed VFR. My understanding of the NOTAM was to allow only category a and B aircraft to shoot IFR approachs. Part 97 is not a requirement for visual flight operations. The only reason for an IFR flight plan was to go above 18000 ft for aircraft performance. I believe that local auths do not understand how to make up a NOTAM and if they had consulted with someone like pilot's group it could have been easier to understand their intentions. I also believe we have a case of 'apples and oranges' part 97 refers to instruments, not VFR operations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A VFR HAWKER 800 FLC LANDS THEIR ACFT ON THE PARALLEL TXWY TO RWY 18 SUPPOSEDLY IN ACCORD WITH THE NOTAM PUBLISHED FOR JAC, WY.

Narrative: I CHKED NOTAMS BEFORE THE FLT. NOTED RWY 18/36 CLOSED. PARALLEL TXWY WAS TO BE USED FOR LNDG. I THEN CALLED DISPATCH AND WAS PATCHED TO THE CHIEF PLT. WENT OVER DETAILS WITH HIM AND CLRED TO GO. THE NOTAM STATES CATEGORY A AND B ACFT ONLY. I PLANNED AND DEPARTED SO AS TO HAVE A VREF OF LESS THAN 120 KTS. WE CANCELED IFR 10 MI SW OF JAC AND MADE A VISUAL ON RWY 18. AFTER LNDG THE LCL SHERIFF ASKED TO SPEAK WITH ME. HE SAID WE WERE NOT ON A LIST AND HE HAD TO MAKE A RPT. I ASKED WHAT THIS WAS IN REGARDS TO AND HE STATED ONLY CATEGORY A AND B ACFT CAN LAND AT THIS ARPT. I STATED THAT WE LANDED AT A WT THAT GAVE US A SPD BELOW CATEGORY B LIMITS. GAVE HIM A COPY OF WT AND BAL TO SHOW LNDG WT. I THEN LOOKED UP PART 97 (STANDARD INST APCH PROCS) 97.3(B) STATES CATEGORIES ARE PREDICTED ON MAX CERTIFICATED LNDG WT. THE HAWKER-8001P IS CATEGORY C. BEFORE DEP I DETERMINED THAT CONDITIONS AT THE ARPT WOULD BE VFR. THIS, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE A AND B LIMITATION BECAUSE WE CANCELED IFR AND ENTERED THE PATTERN AND LANDED VFR. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOTAM WAS TO ALLOW ONLY CATEGORY A AND B ACFT TO SHOOT IFR APCHS. PART 97 IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR VISUAL FLT OPS. THE ONLY REASON FOR AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS TO GO ABOVE 18000 FT FOR ACFT PERFORMANCE. I BELIEVE THAT LCL AUTHS DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO MAKE UP A NOTAM AND IF THEY HAD CONSULTED WITH SOMEONE LIKE PLT'S GROUP IT COULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR INTENTIONS. I ALSO BELIEVE WE HAVE A CASE OF 'APPLES AND ORANGES' PART 97 REFERS TO INSTS, NOT VFR OPS.

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.