Narrative:

Other AWOS. I have been accused of violating 135 VFR visibility requirements by another 135 operator. I was flying in uncontrolled airspace 10 NM south of fort yukon airport at 1000 ft MSL (500 ft AGL) and was maintaining 2 mi flight visibility. This airport does not have a control zone but has a published instrument approach. Air carrier (light transport aircraft) and small transport were attempting the approach and after they both executed missed approachs, they were able to land on the 2ND attempt. The AWOS was reporting, sky missing, visibility 3/4. I chose to stay VFR and attempt pilot navigated approach because if I used the AWOS as a given visibility factor, I could not attempt an instrument approach because the minimum flight visibility on the IAP is 1 mi. As I got closer to the airport, I was maintaining 500 ft AGL and 2 mi visibility and it appeared that the visibility would decrease if I continued so I broke off the VFR approach and landed at a nearby airport (chalkyitsik). The WX at this airport was cavu. I then returned to fort yukon airport approximately 90 mins later at XY50 am local. The AWOS was reporting, sky missing visibility 3/4. However, I experienced the WX to be sky partially obscured, visibility 2 mi at 500 ft AGL, 10 NM southeast of fort yukon. The tops of the obscuration were 1000 MSL, visibility 60. I had steady ground contact as I did previously, so I was able to approach the airport from the northeast and maintain 500 ft AGL and 2 mi until overflying the runway. Then the visibility went to about 1 1/2 as I was on final approach. I landed on runway 21 and departed on runway 3 due to the fact that the visibility was better on the northeast side of the airport. Air carrier, of fairbanks, said chief pilot was going to report me to the FAA. I work for air carrier company in fairbanks and my director of operations and myself discussed this occurrence with our poi before air carrier had a chance to do so (poi name, fairbanks FSDO). Although the AWOS was reporting 3/4, it seems that it does not always give an accurate measure of the WX. At no time did I allow myself to fall below the required VFR minimums for 135 operations. I would greatly appreciate your opinion and help on this matter. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was advised that he was legal for the flight but that it was an unsafe operating procedure. He stated that the company had since developed a new SOP for operating into the fort yukon, ak, airport by requiring to use the AWOS WX reports and file only IFR. He agreed that this incident came to the attention of the FAA due to the concern by the other operator flight crew members of observing VFR traffic in IFR reported operating conditions. He further stated that the FAA had since dropped their investigation due to a lack of proof of a violation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX PLT OF SMT ACFT DIVERTED FROM VFR LNDG AT ARPT RPTING LESS THAN VFR BY AN AUTOMATIC WX OBSERVATION.

Narrative: OTHER AWOS. I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF VIOLATING 135 VFR VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BY ANOTHER 135 OPERATOR. I WAS FLYING IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE 10 NM S OF FORT YUKON ARPT AT 1000 FT MSL (500 FT AGL) AND WAS MAINTAINING 2 MI FLT VISIBILITY. THIS ARPT DOES NOT HAVE A CTL ZONE BUT HAS A PUBLISHED INST APCH. ACR (LTT ACFT) AND SMT WERE ATTEMPTING THE APCH AND AFTER THEY BOTH EXECUTED MISSED APCHS, THEY WERE ABLE TO LAND ON THE 2ND ATTEMPT. THE AWOS WAS RPTING, SKY MISSING, VISIBILITY 3/4. I CHOSE TO STAY VFR AND ATTEMPT PLT NAVIGATED APCH BECAUSE IF I USED THE AWOS AS A GIVEN VISIBILITY FACTOR, I COULD NOT ATTEMPT AN INST APCH BECAUSE THE MINIMUM FLT VISIBILITY ON THE IAP IS 1 MI. AS I GOT CLOSER TO THE ARPT, I WAS MAINTAINING 500 FT AGL AND 2 MI VISIBILITY AND IT APPEARED THAT THE VISIBILITY WOULD DECREASE IF I CONTINUED SO I BROKE OFF THE VFR APCH AND LANDED AT A NEARBY ARPT (CHALKYITSIK). THE WX AT THIS ARPT WAS CAVU. I THEN RETURNED TO FORT YUKON ARPT APPROX 90 MINS LATER AT XY50 AM LCL. THE AWOS WAS RPTING, SKY MISSING VISIBILITY 3/4. HOWEVER, I EXPERIENCED THE WX TO BE SKY PARTIALLY OBSCURED, VISIBILITY 2 MI AT 500 FT AGL, 10 NM SE OF FORT YUKON. THE TOPS OF THE OBSCURATION WERE 1000 MSL, VISIBILITY 60. I HAD STEADY GND CONTACT AS I DID PREVIOUSLY, SO I WAS ABLE TO APCH THE ARPT FROM THE NE AND MAINTAIN 500 FT AGL AND 2 MI UNTIL OVERFLYING THE RWY. THEN THE VISIBILITY WENT TO ABOUT 1 1/2 AS I WAS ON FINAL APCH. I LANDED ON RWY 21 AND DEPARTED ON RWY 3 DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE VISIBILITY WAS BETTER ON THE NE SIDE OF THE ARPT. ACR, OF FAIRBANKS, SAID CHIEF PLT WAS GOING TO RPT ME TO THE FAA. I WORK FOR ACR COMPANY IN FAIRBANKS AND MY DIRECTOR OF OPS AND MYSELF DISCUSSED THIS OCCURRENCE WITH OUR POI BEFORE ACR HAD A CHANCE TO DO SO (POI NAME, FAIRBANKS FSDO). ALTHOUGH THE AWOS WAS RPTING 3/4, IT SEEMS THAT IT DOES NOT ALWAYS GIVE AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF THE WX. AT NO TIME DID I ALLOW MYSELF TO FALL BELOW THE REQUIRED VFR MINIMUMS FOR 135 OPS. I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION AND HELP ON THIS MATTER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS ADVISED THAT HE WAS LEGAL FOR THE FLT BUT THAT IT WAS AN UNSAFE OPERATING PROC. HE STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAD SINCE DEVELOPED A NEW SOP FOR OPERATING INTO THE FORT YUKON, AK, ARPT BY REQUIRING TO USE THE AWOS WX RPTS AND FILE ONLY IFR. HE AGREED THAT THIS INCIDENT CAME TO THE ATTN OF THE FAA DUE TO THE CONCERN BY THE OTHER OPERATOR FLC MEMBERS OF OBSERVING VFR TFC IN IFR RPTED OPERATING CONDITIONS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE FAA HAD SINCE DROPPED THEIR INVESTIGATION DUE TO A LACK OF PROOF OF A VIOLATION.

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.