Narrative:

I departed anchorage international runway 32 via pt mackenzie substation departure on a maintenance test flight and returned to runway 32 via the post office arrival. Part 93 for anchorage requires crossing the north half of the knik arm (cook inlet) above 2000 ft or below 1200 ft. I was performing a return to service test flight in an small aircraft which had a new engine installed along with airframe repair. My intention was to depart/return above the 2000 ft limit in crossing the knik arm. I believe I was in compliance with part 93 but I am somewhat uncertain in recalling these 2 flts. The aircraft being flown was misrigged (left wing heavy) with some other minor mechanical problems I became aware of on climb out. This in combination with some unfamiliarity of the anchorage area left me somewhat distracted of exact position/altitudes during climb out and descent. The aircraft was negative transponder. 2-WAY radio communication was maintained with ATC during both flts. No traffic conflicts arose during the flts. ATC did not advise of any non compliance with part 93. Better familiarity with the area and procedures before performing test flts in the future would prevent such uncertainty.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA TEST FLT UNCERTAIN IF HE DEPARTED AND REENTERED ANC ARSA AND ATA PROPERLY.

Narrative: I DEPARTED ANCHORAGE INTL RWY 32 VIA PT MACKENZIE SUBSTATION DEP ON A MAINT TEST FLT AND RETURNED TO RWY 32 VIA THE POST OFFICE ARR. PART 93 FOR ANCHORAGE REQUIRES XING THE N HALF OF THE KNIK ARM (COOK INLET) ABOVE 2000 FT OR BELOW 1200 FT. I WAS PERFORMING A RETURN TO SVC TEST FLT IN AN SMA WHICH HAD A NEW ENG INSTALLED ALONG WITH AIRFRAME REPAIR. MY INTENTION WAS TO DEPART/RETURN ABOVE THE 2000 FT LIMIT IN XING THE KNIK ARM. I BELIEVE I WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PART 93 BUT I AM SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN IN RECALLING THESE 2 FLTS. THE ACFT BEING FLOWN WAS MISRIGGED (L WING HVY) WITH SOME OTHER MINOR MECHANICAL PROBLEMS I BECAME AWARE OF ON CLB OUT. THIS IN COMBINATION WITH SOME UNFAMILIARITY OF THE ANCHORAGE AREA LEFT ME SOMEWHAT DISTRACTED OF EXACT POS/ALTS DURING CLB OUT AND DSCNT. THE ACFT WAS NEGATIVE TRANSPONDER. 2-WAY RADIO COM WAS MAINTAINED WITH ATC DURING BOTH FLTS. NO TFC CONFLICTS AROSE DURING THE FLTS. ATC DID NOT ADVISE OF ANY NON COMPLIANCE WITH PART 93. BETTER FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA AND PROCS BEFORE PERFORMING TEST FLTS IN THE FUTURE WOULD PREVENT SUCH UNCERTAINTY.

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.