Narrative:

Flight from pdk (atlanta, GA) to bgf (winchester, tn). After watching WX trend all week good VFR was existing with forecast as great. I wanted to file IFR, but did not because (looking back) I was 'penny wise and pound foolish.' I had not obtained the tn etc low altitude en route charts (expiration date aug/18/94) -- close in expiration date, how foolish! Reach bgf visually, but airport was covered with 9/10 low 'valley type clouds. Monitored CTAF, and heard few aircraft had gone down through a hole and was 6-700 below 9/10 overcast and visibility was good below clouds. Tried to monitor AWOS, but was unable to obtain information for unknown reason. I then picked a clearing in clouds and went below and landed safely! I remained clear of clouds at all times, but did not have 1000 ft above aircraft as required for class east airspace (less 10000 ft). After returning home and being uncomfortable about safety for myself, passenger and other aircraft (no other aircraft involved), I reviewed 'airspace reclassification' and especially class 'east' plus 91.155 basic VFR min. As a result, realized that 'clear of clouds' was wrong assumption to use in my decision process when going through the aforementioned hole. 'Clear of clouds' is for 'G' airspace and this was not my situation. I have reviewed these areas to eliminate any future problems. Human factor type considerations: I assumed that because others did it (eg: I was 5TH of 6TH to land at fly-in breakfast). That 'clear of clouds' was correct and ok, that is legal -- and I should have known the answer! I knew exactly where my nearest 'VFR' airport was and should have used it. I should have placed long- distance call to airport before departing pdk for 1ST hand WX (no WX reporting at bgf). I should have filed IFR, because that is what my plan was to do earlier in week, and part of my own career training at my experience level, that is, to use the system and did not because I was cheap (with safety) and will buy those charts even if expiration is near in future. Final comment: I do appreciate having the NASA aviation safety reporting system available to me! It has provided me an opportunity to soul-search myself and this write-up provided to me a chance to clear my own thinking and to set and reaffirm my commitment to flight safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM CLOUDS.

Narrative: FLT FROM PDK (ATLANTA, GA) TO BGF (WINCHESTER, TN). AFTER WATCHING WX TREND ALL WK GOOD VFR WAS EXISTING WITH FORECAST AS GREAT. I WANTED TO FILE IFR, BUT DID NOT BECAUSE (LOOKING BACK) I WAS 'PENNY WISE AND POUND FOOLISH.' I HAD NOT OBTAINED THE TN ETC LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS (EXPIRATION DATE AUG/18/94) -- CLOSE IN EXPIRATION DATE, HOW FOOLISH! REACH BGF VISUALLY, BUT ARPT WAS COVERED WITH 9/10 LOW 'VALLEY TYPE CLOUDS. MONITORED CTAF, AND HEARD FEW ACFT HAD GONE DOWN THROUGH A HOLE AND WAS 6-700 BELOW 9/10 OVCST AND VISIBILITY WAS GOOD BELOW CLOUDS. TRIED TO MONITOR AWOS, BUT WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN INFO FOR UNKNOWN REASON. I THEN PICKED A CLRING IN CLOUDS AND WENT BELOW AND LANDED SAFELY! I REMAINED CLR OF CLOUDS AT ALL TIMES, BUT DID NOT HAVE 1000 FT ABOVE ACFT AS REQUIRED FOR CLASS E AIRSPACE (LESS 10000 FT). AFTER RETURNING HOME AND BEING UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT SAFETY FOR MYSELF, PAX AND OTHER ACFT (NO OTHER ACFT INVOLVED), I REVIEWED 'AIRSPACE RECLASSIFICATION' AND ESPECIALLY CLASS 'E' PLUS 91.155 BASIC VFR MIN. AS A RESULT, REALIZED THAT 'CLR OF CLOUDS' WAS WRONG ASSUMPTION TO USE IN MY DECISION PROCESS WHEN GOING THROUGH THE AFOREMENTIONED HOLE. 'CLR OF CLOUDS' IS FOR 'G' AIRSPACE AND THIS WAS NOT MY SIT. I HAVE REVIEWED THESE AREAS TO ELIMINATE ANY FUTURE PROBS. HUMAN FACTOR TYPE CONSIDERATIONS: I ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE OTHERS DID IT (EG: I WAS 5TH OF 6TH TO LAND AT FLY-IN BREAKFAST). THAT 'CLR OF CLOUDS' WAS CORRECT AND OK, THAT IS LEGAL -- AND I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE ANSWER! I KNEW EXACTLY WHERE MY NEAREST 'VFR' ARPT WAS AND SHOULD HAVE USED IT. I SHOULD HAVE PLACED LONG- DISTANCE CALL TO ARPT BEFORE DEPARTING PDK FOR 1ST HAND WX (NO WX RPTING AT BGF). I SHOULD HAVE FILED IFR, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MY PLAN WAS TO DO EARLIER IN WK, AND PART OF MY OWN CAREER TRAINING AT MY EXPERIENCE LEVEL, THAT IS, TO USE THE SYS AND DID NOT BECAUSE I WAS CHEAP (WITH SAFETY) AND WILL BUY THOSE CHARTS EVEN IF EXPIRATION IS NEAR IN FUTURE. FINAL COMMENT: I DO APPRECIATE HAVING THE NASA AVIATION SAFETY RPTING SYS AVAILABLE TO ME! IT HAS PROVIDED ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SOUL-SEARCH MYSELF AND THIS WRITE-UP PROVIDED TO ME A CHANCE TO CLR MY OWN THINKING AND TO SET AND REAFFIRM MY COMMITMENT TO FLT SAFETY.

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.