Narrative:

On sunday, june 1990, I filed an IFR flight plan from omn to csg. The filed routing was omn VORTAC RNAV direct pecan VORTAC, V-321 to prest intersection, direct csg. I departed omn solo in VFR conditions. A rain shower had recently passed the airport and I estimated the visibility was 10 mi plus, with scattered clouds. At about 600' MSL I called dab departure control on 125.8 to pickup an IFR clearance. I was given a transponder code, advised to maintain VFR and was radar idented. I was then given the following clearance, 'cleared to csg airport via direct craig, direct pecan, then as filed; climb to 2000', expect 7000' in 10 mins, dab altimeter 30.16.' as I continued climbing, I was reviewing the navigation charts first to get the craig frequency, and then to prepare to develop a new RNAV route. The dab departure controller then called with the following statement, according to the best of my recollection, 'small aircraft you were advised to maintain 2000': climb to 3000'.' reactively, before his statement was complete, I reduced pitch to level flight attitude, looked at the altimeter, and noticed that it was approaching 2500'. I then responded with, 'roger, small aircraft is climbing to 3000'', and resumed the climb. At no time since departure up to this point did I fly the aircraft into IMC. When I took off on this flight, there was no question that WX conditions at omn exceeded VFR minimums by a wide margin, but shortly thereafter apparently conditions at dab were IMC. There is however, no convenient way for VFR pilots at omn to know this unless they listen dab ATIS, which frequently cannot be received on the ground at omn west/O deactivating the receiver squelch control. Furthermore, VFR aircraft in the omn airport pattern turned to the pilot advisory frequency of 122.7 would be unaware that this situation has occurred. Concern over this situation led me to research the issue. First I went through far parts 61 and 91, and was unable to locate a regulation addressing this scenario. I next went through an aim reprint which I received at a flight instrument refresher clinic last december, and was unable to find an answer. Then I called a national pilot organization and discussed the matter with one of their regulations knowledgeable staff, using a departing aircraft as an example. He advised that as long as an IFR flight plan was on file, and the pilot departing an uncontrolled airport in VFR conditions and was able to maintain VFR when requested by the controller to do so, he didn't think there was a problem. What I perceived as some lack of certainty in the explanation by the staff person led me to call the daytona beach tower. The first person I talked with said 'a supervisor will have go answer that one,' or something to that effect. The supervisor that subsequently handled my inquiry told me that I wouldn't believe how many times that question is raised, and while he had an opinion, he wasn't sure his was the official position. He added that a flight instrument at omn had recently called wanting to know if VFR operations in VFR meteorological conditions were permitted at omn when dab is reporting IMC. The supervisor said that another supervisor who had answered the instrument's question was nearby. While I held, he talked it over with that supervisor. He then continued our conversation, stating that when dab is IMC, then the entire control zone is considered IMC and VFR operations, except for special VFR were not permitted. He further stated that it was dab ATC policy to take no action (and he specifically mentioned that hey do not notify FSDO) whenever a pilot departs omn VFR when dab is IMC, provided the pilot has an IFR clearance on file and he requests that clearance. This situation should be addressed in aim, if it is not already there. If it is, perhaps it could be made a little more conspicuous. Consideration would be given by the FAA to issue a pilot alert particularly to pilots in those areas where there is more than one airport in a control zone. ATC personnel need to be advised of the proper handling of this issue. It would be helpful if a sign at the departure end of each runway could be placed alerting pilots to confirm that the control zone is VFR before departing VFR. It would be especially beneficial if the sign had a flashing light remotely controled by ATC which would be activated whenever the controling airport was IMC. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter was asked if he had since been able to find the specific reference behind his perception that, when the primary airport is IFR, so are all other airports within the control zone. He said that he had not. He verified that his altitude deviation came about because of his distraction with the reprogramming of his RNAV due to the route change issued by ATC.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT FILED AN RNAV ROUTE OUT OF OMN. UPON PICKING UP HIS IFR CLRNC AFTER DEP, ATC GAVE HIM A MODIFIED ROUTE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE PLT'S DISTR WITH REPROGRAMMING HIS RNAV LED TO HIS OVERSHOOTING THE ALT HE HAD BEEN TOLD TO MAINTAIN.

Narrative: ON SUNDAY, JUNE 1990, I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM OMN TO CSG. THE FILED RTING WAS OMN VORTAC RNAV DIRECT PECAN VORTAC, V-321 TO PREST INTXN, DIRECT CSG. I DEPARTED OMN SOLO IN VFR CONDITIONS. A RAIN SHOWER HAD RECENTLY PASSED THE ARPT AND I ESTIMATED THE VISIBILITY WAS 10 MI PLUS, WITH SCATTERED CLOUDS. AT ABOUT 600' MSL I CALLED DAB DEP CTL ON 125.8 TO PICKUP AN IFR CLRNC. I WAS GIVEN A XPONDER CODE, ADVISED TO MAINTAIN VFR AND WAS RADAR IDENTED. I WAS THEN GIVEN THE FOLLOWING CLRNC, 'CLRED TO CSG ARPT VIA DIRECT CRAIG, DIRECT PECAN, THEN AS FILED; CLB TO 2000', EXPECT 7000' IN 10 MINS, DAB ALTIMETER 30.16.' AS I CONTINUED CLBING, I WAS REVIEWING THE NAV CHARTS FIRST TO GET THE CRAIG FREQ, AND THEN TO PREPARE TO DEVELOP A NEW RNAV RTE. THE DAB DEP CTLR THEN CALLED WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, 'SMA YOU WERE ADVISED TO MAINTAIN 2000': CLB TO 3000'.' REACTIVELY, BEFORE HIS STATEMENT WAS COMPLETE, I REDUCED PITCH TO LEVEL FLT ATTITUDE, LOOKED AT THE ALTIMETER, AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS APCHING 2500'. I THEN RESPONDED WITH, 'ROGER, SMA IS CLBING TO 3000'', AND RESUMED THE CLB. AT NO TIME SINCE DEP UP TO THIS POINT DID I FLY THE ACFT INTO IMC. WHEN I TOOK OFF ON THIS FLT, THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT WX CONDITIONS AT OMN EXCEEDED VFR MINIMUMS BY A WIDE MARGIN, BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER APPARENTLY CONDITIONS AT DAB WERE IMC. THERE IS HOWEVER, NO CONVENIENT WAY FOR VFR PLTS AT OMN TO KNOW THIS UNLESS THEY LISTEN DAB ATIS, WHICH FREQUENTLY CANNOT BE RECEIVED ON THE GND AT OMN W/O DEACTIVATING THE RECEIVER SQUELCH CTL. FURTHERMORE, VFR ACFT IN THE OMN ARPT PATTERN TURNED TO THE PLT ADVISORY FREQ OF 122.7 WOULD BE UNAWARE THAT THIS SITUATION HAS OCCURRED. CONCERN OVER THIS SITUATION LED ME TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE. FIRST I WENT THROUGH FAR PARTS 61 AND 91, AND WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE A REG ADDRESSING THIS SCENARIO. I NEXT WENT THROUGH AN AIM REPRINT WHICH I RECEIVED AT A FLT INSTR REFRESHER CLINIC LAST DECEMBER, AND WAS UNABLE TO FIND AN ANSWER. THEN I CALLED A NATIONAL PLT ORGANIZATION AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH ONE OF THEIR REGS KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF, USING A DEPARTING ACFT AS AN EXAMPLE. HE ADVISED THAT AS LONG AS AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS ON FILE, AND THE PLT DEPARTING AN UNCTLED ARPT IN VFR CONDITIONS AND WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR WHEN REQUESTED BY THE CTLR TO DO SO, HE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A PROB. WHAT I PERCEIVED AS SOME LACK OF CERTAINTY IN THE EXPLANATION BY THE STAFF PERSON LED ME TO CALL THE DAYTONA BEACH TWR. THE FIRST PERSON I TALKED WITH SAID 'A SUPVR WILL HAVE GO ANSWER THAT ONE,' OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THE SUPVR THAT SUBSEQUENTLY HANDLED MY INQUIRY TOLD ME THAT I WOULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY TIMES THAT QUESTION IS RAISED, AND WHILE HE HAD AN OPINION, HE WASN'T SURE HIS WAS THE OFFICIAL POS. HE ADDED THAT A FLT INSTR AT OMN HAD RECENTLY CALLED WANTING TO KNOW IF VFR OPS IN VFR METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WERE PERMITTED AT OMN WHEN DAB IS RPTING IMC. THE SUPVR SAID THAT ANOTHER SUPVR WHO HAD ANSWERED THE INSTR'S QUESTION WAS NEARBY. WHILE I HELD, HE TALKED IT OVER WITH THAT SUPVR. HE THEN CONTINUED OUR CONVERSATION, STATING THAT WHEN DAB IS IMC, THEN THE ENTIRE CTL ZONE IS CONSIDERED IMC AND VFR OPS, EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL VFR WERE NOT PERMITTED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IT WAS DAB ATC POLICY TO TAKE NO ACTION (AND HE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT HEY DO NOT NOTIFY FSDO) WHENEVER A PLT DEPARTS OMN VFR WHEN DAB IS IMC, PROVIDED THE PLT HAS AN IFR CLRNC ON FILE AND HE REQUESTS THAT CLRNC. THIS SITUATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN AIM, IF IT IS NOT ALREADY THERE. IF IT IS, PERHAPS IT COULD BE MADE A LITTLE MORE CONSPICUOUS. CONSIDERATION WOULD BE GIVEN BY THE FAA TO ISSUE A PLT ALERT PARTICULARLY TO PLTS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ARPT IN A CTL ZONE. ATC PERSONNEL NEED TO BE ADVISED OF THE PROPER HANDLING OF THIS ISSUE. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF A SIGN AT THE DEP END OF EACH RWY COULD BE PLACED ALERTING PLTS TO CONFIRM THAT THE CTL ZONE IS VFR BEFORE DEPARTING VFR. IT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY BENEFICIAL IF THE SIGN HAD A FLASHING LIGHT REMOTELY CTLED BY ATC WHICH WOULD BE ACTIVATED WHENEVER THE CTLING ARPT WAS IMC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR WAS ASKED IF HE HAD SINCE BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE BEHIND HIS PERCEPTION THAT, WHEN THE PRIMARY ARPT IS IFR, SO ARE ALL OTHER ARPTS WITHIN THE CTL ZONE. HE SAID THAT HE HAD NOT. HE VERIFIED THAT HIS ALT DEV CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF HIS DISTR WITH THE REPROGRAMMING OF HIS RNAV DUE TO THE RTE CHANGE ISSUED BY ATC.

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.