Narrative:

On sep/mon/01, at approximately XA30Z I made phone calls to the tower supervisor on duty at mke to inquire about what procedures (ATC, FSS) would be required to enable me to legally fly and conduct VFR power line inspection given the current state of the national airspace restrs. He said he would do some checking with the regional office and get back to me, which he did. He stated that the proper procedure would be to file 2 IFR flight plans. The first flight plan from mke to the nearest fix or airport (57C-east troy) closest to where the power line inspection would begin. I would then cancel IFR over '57C' and proceed VFR on the inspection, maintaining radio contact with ATC and on an assigned squawk code. After the inspection I would pick up the second IFR flight plan, again over 57C, and return to mke. He further stated that if green bay FSS had a problem or questions about this to call mke and they would reassure them that this was cleared through the proper channels at the regional office. Green bay FSS did then make the call to mke. They then accepted both flight plans and I proceeded in accordance with the instructions. 2 additional flts of the same nature were flown on 09/tue/01, in strict accordance with the procedures. All power line inspections were in VMC conditions and at no time was I not in radio contact with mke approach. In the course of these power line inspections on 09/mon/01 and 09/tue/01, a related situation came to my attention. The contractor doing the inspections is currently seeking approval of their operations manual and thereby still in the 'experimental' stage. Their intended full inspection route can only be partially flown pending approval of their manual. My employer specified the partial route to be flown on an earlier flight (08/thu/01) and relayed those strict parameters to the contractor. In the interim period between 08/thu/01 and 09/mon/01, a misunderstanding by the contractor led them to believe that their manual was approved to the extent that their full route could be flown. Subsequently, in their desire to 'keep things rolling' this was miscommunicated to me leading to overflts of yet-approved areas of the full route. Unfortunately this may have caused concern from citizens on the ground.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CESSNA 207 PLT FLEW PWR LINE INSPECTION RTE NOT PRESENTLY APPROVED BY FAA VIA THE COMPANY OPS MANUAL FOR PWR LINE INSPECTIONS.

Narrative: ON SEP/MON/01, AT APPROX XA30Z I MADE PHONE CALLS TO THE TWR SUPVR ON DUTY AT MKE TO INQUIRE ABOUT WHAT PROCS (ATC, FSS) WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENABLE ME TO LEGALLY FLY AND CONDUCT VFR PWR LINE INSPECTION GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE RESTRS. HE SAID HE WOULD DO SOME CHKING WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND GET BACK TO ME, WHICH HE DID. HE STATED THAT THE PROPER PROC WOULD BE TO FILE 2 IFR FLT PLANS. THE FIRST FLT PLAN FROM MKE TO THE NEAREST FIX OR ARPT (57C-EAST TROY) CLOSEST TO WHERE THE PWR LINE INSPECTION WOULD BEGIN. I WOULD THEN CANCEL IFR OVER '57C' AND PROCEED VFR ON THE INSPECTION, MAINTAINING RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC AND ON AN ASSIGNED SQUAWK CODE. AFTER THE INSPECTION I WOULD PICK UP THE SECOND IFR FLT PLAN, AGAIN OVER 57C, AND RETURN TO MKE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IF GREEN BAY FSS HAD A PROB OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TO CALL MKE AND THEY WOULD REASSURE THEM THAT THIS WAS CLRED THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE. GREEN BAY FSS DID THEN MAKE THE CALL TO MKE. THEY THEN ACCEPTED BOTH FLT PLANS AND I PROCEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS. 2 ADDITIONAL FLTS OF THE SAME NATURE WERE FLOWN ON 09/TUE/01, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCS. ALL PWR LINE INSPECTIONS WERE IN VMC CONDITIONS AND AT NO TIME WAS I NOT IN RADIO CONTACT WITH MKE APCH. IN THE COURSE OF THESE PWR LINE INSPECTIONS ON 09/MON/01 AND 09/TUE/01, A RELATED SIT CAME TO MY ATTN. THE CONTRACTOR DOING THE INSPECTIONS IS CURRENTLY SEEKING APPROVAL OF THEIR OPS MANUAL AND THEREBY STILL IN THE 'EXPERIMENTAL' STAGE. THEIR INTENDED FULL INSPECTION RTE CAN ONLY BE PARTIALLY FLOWN PENDING APPROVAL OF THEIR MANUAL. MY EMPLOYER SPECIFIED THE PARTIAL RTE TO BE FLOWN ON AN EARLIER FLT (08/THU/01) AND RELAYED THOSE STRICT PARAMETERS TO THE CONTRACTOR. IN THE INTERIM PERIOD BTWN 08/THU/01 AND 09/MON/01, A MISUNDERSTANDING BY THE CONTRACTOR LED THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR MANUAL WAS APPROVED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR FULL RTE COULD BE FLOWN. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THEIR DESIRE TO 'KEEP THINGS ROLLING' THIS WAS MISCOMMUNICATED TO ME LEADING TO OVERFLTS OF YET-APPROVED AREAS OF THE FULL RTE. UNFORTUNATELY THIS MAY HAVE CAUSED CONCERN FROM CITIZENS ON THE GND.

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.