Narrative:

While flying an small aircraft sel aircraft owned by the police, and being operated by the police during traffic control, the detail was stopped, due to an individual stopping and the ground trooper's position and supposedly identing himself as an FAA investigator out of the boston office. He asked if we were flying under VFR or IFR and was told VFR. Since he had stopped in a particularly dangerous area, the trooper asked him to leave the roadway to keep a vehicle accident from occurring. As the individual left, he was heard to say 'I've seen the airplane going in and out of the clouds.' when the ground trooper informed me of this, we immediately left the area. An attempt was made to locate the individual, to no avail. The WX in the area was marginal with fog over the hills and some clouds (scattered) over the highway to the north of our stopping area. In the area we were operating, I believe we were in uncontrolled airspace. The surface elevation in that area is indicated on the sectional as being between 1000 and 2000 ft and our normal operating altitude in that area is between 2200 and 2500 ft MSL, using the lci altimeter setting. This normally puts us 800 to 1000 ft above the hilly terrain. Since the sectional (ny) indicates this area in 1200 ft AGL floor area, this puts in uncontrolled airspace which allows flight under VFR with 1 mi visibility and clear of clouds. We had 6 to 20 mi visibility since we had seen plymouth airport, NH12, from over the highway. Since we did have some spotty clouds below us, it is possible that from his vantage point while traveling at highway speeds, he saw me going over the clouds and lose sight of the airplane, but at no time did the aircraft penetrate any clouds. Lci WX was VFR with 3900 overcast 10. Con, our departure point, was VFR as was mht with 15000 ft ceiling visibility better than 7. All forecasts indicate improving conditions. It is felt that the individual was either not who he said, or was misrepresenting himself. In any case, he did not seem to be familiar with VFR rules in their entirety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN FAA INSPECTOR ALLEGED THAT A STATE-OPERATED TFC CTL ACFT WAS OPERATING IN AND OUT OF CLOUDS.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING AN SMA SEL ACFT OWNED BY THE POLICE, AND BEING OPERATED BY THE POLICE DURING TFC CTL, THE DETAIL WAS STOPPED, DUE TO AN INDIVIDUAL STOPPING AND THE GND TROOPER'S POS AND SUPPOSEDLY IDENTING HIMSELF AS AN FAA INVESTIGATOR OUT OF THE BOSTON OFFICE. HE ASKED IF WE WERE FLYING UNDER VFR OR IFR AND WAS TOLD VFR. SINCE HE HAD STOPPED IN A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS AREA, THE TROOPER ASKED HIM TO LEAVE THE ROADWAY TO KEEP A VEHICLE ACCIDENT FROM OCCURRING. AS THE INDIVIDUAL LEFT, HE WAS HEARD TO SAY 'I'VE SEEN THE AIRPLANE GOING IN AND OUT OF THE CLOUDS.' WHEN THE GND TROOPER INFORMED ME OF THIS, WE IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE AREA. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO LOCATE THE INDIVIDUAL, TO NO AVAIL. THE WX IN THE AREA WAS MARGINAL WITH FOG OVER THE HILLS AND SOME CLOUDS (SCATTERED) OVER THE HIGHWAY TO THE N OF OUR STOPPING AREA. IN THE AREA WE WERE OPERATING, I BELIEVE WE WERE IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE. THE SURFACE ELEVATION IN THAT AREA IS INDICATED ON THE SECTIONAL AS BEING BTWN 1000 AND 2000 FT AND OUR NORMAL OPERATING ALT IN THAT AREA IS BTWN 2200 AND 2500 FT MSL, USING THE LCI ALTIMETER SETTING. THIS NORMALLY PUTS US 800 TO 1000 FT ABOVE THE HILLY TERRAIN. SINCE THE SECTIONAL (NY) INDICATES THIS AREA IN 1200 FT AGL FLOOR AREA, THIS PUTS IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE WHICH ALLOWS FLT UNDER VFR WITH 1 MI VISIBILITY AND CLR OF CLOUDS. WE HAD 6 TO 20 MI VISIBILITY SINCE WE HAD SEEN PLYMOUTH ARPT, NH12, FROM OVER THE HWY. SINCE WE DID HAVE SOME SPOTTY CLOUDS BELOW US, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT FROM HIS VANTAGE POINT WHILE TRAVELING AT HWY SPDS, HE SAW ME GOING OVER THE CLOUDS AND LOSE SIGHT OF THE AIRPLANE, BUT AT NO TIME DID THE ACFT PENETRATE ANY CLOUDS. LCI WX WAS VFR WITH 3900 OVCST 10. CON, OUR DEP POINT, WAS VFR AS WAS MHT WITH 15000 FT CEILING VISIBILITY BETTER THAN 7. ALL FORECASTS INDICATE IMPROVING CONDITIONS. IT IS FELT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS EITHER NOT WHO HE SAID, OR WAS MISREPRESENTING HIMSELF. IN ANY CASE, HE DID NOT SEEM TO BE FAMILIAR WITH VFR RULES IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

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.