Narrative:

While during a practice VOR approach to mue from west, while under hood, I was informed that we were approaching clouds (scattered). I felt it was no problem, being instrument current and in an IFR plane. I had scanned the chart and determined we were in uncontrolled airspace. Some clouds were penetrated, but WX was generally VFR and clearly VFR at destination airport. Did not note altitude strictly, but was generally 1000' AGL approaching airport. Not at published IFR altitudes. Upon return to kona noted altimeter setting had changed significantly. Upon takeoff to east, encountered low ceilings after departure. At the loss of some visibility, executed quick 180 degree to return to VFR conditions. Inadvertent penetration of some clouds, but generally had ground visibility. Next day was informed that another pilot had reported me. Quite surprised, will re-evaluate hood practices. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter claims that in his ground school they were teaching that if instrument rated, even though not on an IFR clearance, they could penetrate clouds in uncontrolled airspace. Claimed that since not prohibited in far, was not a violation. I cited 91.105, cloud clearance in uncontrolled airspace, and explained could not operate IFR west/O IFR clearance. Has not had any followup conversation with FAA inspector on incident. Suggested he get the flying school to contact FAA on their interpretation and get their ground school handbook corrected.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA VFR IN IMC.

Narrative: WHILE DURING A PRACTICE VOR APCH TO MUE FROM W, WHILE UNDER HOOD, I WAS INFORMED THAT WE WERE APCHING CLOUDS (SCATTERED). I FELT IT WAS NO PROB, BEING INSTRUMENT CURRENT AND IN AN IFR PLANE. I HAD SCANNED THE CHART AND DETERMINED WE WERE IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE. SOME CLOUDS WERE PENETRATED, BUT WX WAS GENERALLY VFR AND CLEARLY VFR AT DEST ARPT. DID NOT NOTE ALT STRICTLY, BUT WAS GENERALLY 1000' AGL APCHING ARPT. NOT AT PUBLISHED IFR ALTS. UPON RETURN TO KONA NOTED ALTIMETER SETTING HAD CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. UPON TKOF TO E, ENCOUNTERED LOW CEILINGS AFTER DEP. AT THE LOSS OF SOME VIS, EXECUTED QUICK 180 DEG TO RETURN TO VFR CONDITIONS. INADVERTENT PENETRATION OF SOME CLOUDS, BUT GENERALLY HAD GND VIS. NEXT DAY WAS INFORMED THAT ANOTHER PLT HAD RPTED ME. QUITE SURPRISED, WILL RE-EVALUATE HOOD PRACTICES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CLAIMS THAT IN HIS GND SCHOOL THEY WERE TEACHING THAT IF INSTRUMENT RATED, EVEN THOUGH NOT ON AN IFR CLRNC, THEY COULD PENETRATE CLOUDS IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE. CLAIMED THAT SINCE NOT PROHIBITED IN FAR, WAS NOT A VIOLATION. I CITED 91.105, CLOUD CLRNC IN UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE, AND EXPLAINED COULD NOT OPERATE IFR W/O IFR CLRNC. HAS NOT HAD ANY FOLLOWUP CONVERSATION WITH FAA INSPECTOR ON INCIDENT. SUGGESTED HE GET THE FLYING SCHOOL TO CONTACT FAA ON THEIR INTERP AND GET THEIR GND SCHOOL HANDBOOK CORRECTED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.