Narrative:

I conducted an INS approach (VOR 28) at alb when reported visibility was below minimums for that approach. (At all times my in-flight conditions were VMC.) my call sign during the approach was a company call sign, not the aircraft tail #. The flight was conducted under far part 91. My company was informed by alb ATC that the company cal sign should only be used when operating a flight under far part 135--although the FAA office in portland, me assures that it was a legal operation and there is nothing wrong in using a company call sign when operating under part 91. Hence the consequences of confusion between pilot and ATC. I would like to draw attention to an apparent discrepancy between ATC and far 135 operators, with regard to the use of tail #'south vs call signs during part 91 operations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC FAC CLAIMS THAT ATX FLT OPERATED UNDER FEDERAL AVIATION REG PART 91 MAY NOT USE FEDERAL AVIATION REG PART 135 CALL SIGN.

Narrative: I CONDUCTED AN INS APCH (VOR 28) AT ALB WHEN RPTED VISIBILITY WAS BELOW MINIMUMS FOR THAT APCH. (AT ALL TIMES MY INFLT CONDITIONS WERE VMC.) MY CALL SIGN DURING THE APCH WAS A COMPANY CALL SIGN, NOT THE ACFT TAIL #. THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER FAR PART 91. MY COMPANY WAS INFORMED BY ALB ATC THAT THE COMPANY CAL SIGN SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHEN OPERATING A FLT UNDER FAR PART 135--ALTHOUGH THE FAA OFFICE IN PORTLAND, ME ASSURES THAT IT WAS A LEGAL OPERATION AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN USING A COMPANY CALL SIGN WHEN OPERATING UNDER PART 91. HENCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONFUSION BTWN PLT AND ATC. I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW ATTN TO AN APPARENT DISCREPANCY BTWN ATC AND FAR 135 OPERATORS, WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF TAIL #'S VS CALL SIGNS DURING PART 91 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.