Narrative:

I was heading to cdw; flying VFR in VFR conditions. I was receiving VFR traffic advisories from ny approach; and had received a clearance to enter the ny class B airspace. As I descended through the floor of the class B approximately 10 miles southwest of cdw and into the mmu class D airspace; I was passed off to mmu tower. At the time; mmu ATIS was reporting scattered clouds at 1500' and 2.5 miles visibility; which is below VFR minimums. The ATIS was not very current (I don't recall the exact time of the ATIS); but each of teb; cdw; and ewr was reporting visibilities in excess of 7 miles and either clear below 12;000 or ceilings well in excess of both VFR minimums and my altitude of 2500 ft MSL. Mmu tower proceeded to chastise me over the radio for flying through his airspace without an IFR clearance; reminding me that mmu was reporting below VFR minimums. I had both the ground; mmu airport; a clear sky; and cdw (greater than 7 miles to my northeast) all in sight--needless to say I was well in compliance with VFR minimums. I was also well in compliance with cloud clearance minimums. Nonetheless; when I responded to tower indicating the weather conditions in which I was flying (e.g.; visibility in excess of 7 miles; etc.) mmu tower snarkily responded that it 'doesn't matter' to them down there; and 'we're IFR.' by that point; I was nearing cdw airspace and requested a frequency change. I landed at cdw without incident; perplexed by my exchange. Immediately upon shutting down; I looked up mmu's weather on my garmin 496; and they had within the 15 minutes following my conversation with tower updated their weather to greater than 7 miles of visibility and sky clear. Obviously the ATIS was out of date; and not accurate. Furthermore; although I was sure I hadn't violated any fars;' I nonetheless looked up the appropriate far upon returning home that evening. Sure enough; I confirmed that I was not in violation. By my read of far 91.155; a person may operate under VFR in class D airspace when flight (not ground) visibility is 3 miles or greater; and greater than 500 ft below; 1000 ft above; and 2000 ft horizontal from clouds. Given that I could see cdw from my present position over mmu; I clearly had greater than 3 miles of flight visibility. And I was in basically skc conditions. I do not understand why the controller would say that my flight visibility was not relevant; and why he would imply that his reported weather was the governing measurement. By my read of far 91.155(d); reported ground visibility matters only when a person desires to takeoff or land an aircraft; or enter the traffic pattern of an airport; under VFR; within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of class D airspace designated for an airport. I was not taking off or landing; or entering the traffic pattern; at mmu. I was simply overflying at 2500 ft. I maintain that the tower controller was wrongly implying a violation of the fars; and that I was not in violation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A VFR general aviation aircraft was denied Class D transition clearance from MMU tower due to surface visibility at MMU; but with in-flight visibility reported in excess of 7 miles. Reporter alleges ATC was wrongly applying FARs.

Narrative: I was heading to CDW; flying VFR in VFR conditions. I was receiving VFR traffic advisories from NY Approach; and had received a clearance to enter the NY Class B Airspace. As I descended through the floor of the Class B approximately 10 miles SW of CDW and into the MMU Class D Airspace; I was passed off to MMU tower. At the time; MMU ATIS was reporting scattered clouds at 1500' and 2.5 miles visibility; which is below VFR minimums. The ATIS was not very current (I don't recall the exact time of the ATIS); but each of TEB; CDW; and EWR was reporting visibilities in excess of 7 miles and either clear below 12;000 or ceilings well in excess of both VFR minimums and my altitude of 2500 FT MSL. MMU tower proceeded to chastise me over the radio for flying through his airspace without an IFR clearance; reminding me that MMU was reporting below VFR minimums. I had both the ground; MMU airport; a clear sky; and CDW (greater than 7 miles to my NE) all in sight--needless to say I was well in compliance with VFR minimums. I was also well in compliance with cloud clearance minimums. Nonetheless; when I responded to tower indicating the weather conditions in which I was flying (e.g.; visibility in excess of 7 miles; etc.) MMU tower snarkily responded that it 'doesn't matter' to them down there; and 'we're IFR.' By that point; I was nearing CDW airspace and requested a frequency change. I landed at CDW without incident; perplexed by my exchange. Immediately upon shutting down; I looked up MMU's weather on my Garmin 496; and they had within the 15 minutes following my conversation with tower updated their weather to greater than 7 miles of visibility and sky clear. Obviously the ATIS was out of date; and not accurate. Furthermore; although I was sure I hadn't violated any FARs;' I nonetheless looked up the appropriate FAR upon returning home that evening. Sure enough; I confirmed that I was not in violation. By my read of FAR 91.155; a person may operate under VFR in Class D airspace when flight (not ground) visibility is 3 miles or greater; and greater than 500 FT below; 1000 FT above; and 2000 FT horizontal from clouds. Given that I could see CDW from my present position over MMU; I clearly had greater than 3 miles of flight visibility. And I was in basically SKC conditions. I do not understand why the controller would say that my flight visibility was not relevant; and why he would imply that his reported weather was the governing measurement. By my read of FAR 91.155(d); reported ground visibility matters only when a person desires to takeoff or land an aircraft; or enter the traffic pattern of an airport; under VFR; within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class D airspace designated for an airport. I was not taking off or landing; or entering the traffic pattern; at MMU. I was simply overflying at 2500 FT. I maintain that the Tower Controller was wrongly implying a violation of the FARs; and that I was not in violation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.