Narrative:

While flying VFR from lou to bwg, en route to bwg in-flight visibility was greater than 4 mi at 3500 ft MSL. Skies clear with fog and mist in low lying areas. When 10 mi from bwg, FSS was contacted. FSS reported that ground visibility was 2 3/4 mi. FSS stated that 'the class east airspace at the surface was IFR, what are my intentions.' I told the FSS that I wanted to land bwg VFR and could they rechk flight visibility. My in-flight visibility was greater than 5 mi. I could see the city of bowling green and the airport from the northeast. South of the airport was a low lying layer of mist but none of this mist had a bearing on my in-flight visibility. The FSS answered saying visibility is 2 3/4 mi, what are my intentions. I told the FSS that I was VFR at 3500 ft and would overfly the airport at 3500 ft. I proceeded over the north end of the airport at 3500 ft VFR and turned back to the northeast. The FSS asked me again, 'what are my intentions.' I told them that I was returning to lou. The FSS station told me that I could not enter class east airspace unless I filed an IFR flight plan when I first contacted them. I told the FSS that I was VFR and my in-flight visibility was greater than 3 mi. The FSS said that I needed to file IFR or remain clear of the class east airspace, the class east airspace is active. My altitude for this portion of the flight was at 3500 ft MSL. I do not believe that I violated any airspace or in-flight rules by entering the class east airspace. Far 91.155 (D) restricts operations in the traffic pattern to and from the airport. I was never in the traffic pattern. Was I correct with my interpretation of this rule? Suggestion: when I told the FSS that I would like to land VFR at bwg airport, a special VFR clearance would have allowed me to land. When I requested to land, the FSS could have given me a special VFR clearance to enter the traffic pattern. So, I remained VFR and returned to lou. The FSS should be able to make a special VFR clearance available to the pilot. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had since discussed this matter with the FSS and learned that he could have received a special VFR through the ATC ARTCC center if he would have asked. He thought that by stating how good the flight visibility was, it would have triggered the special VFR clearance possibility if available. He further stated that he has since become instrument rated.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT OF AN SMA SEL RETURNED TO LAND AT HIS ORIGIN ARPT DUE TO WX RPTED BELOW VFR MINIMUMS FOR CLASS E AIRSPACE.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING VFR FROM LOU TO BWG, ENRTE TO BWG INFLT VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 4 MI AT 3500 FT MSL. SKIES CLR WITH FOG AND MIST IN LOW LYING AREAS. WHEN 10 MI FROM BWG, FSS WAS CONTACTED. FSS RPTED THAT GND VISIBILITY WAS 2 3/4 MI. FSS STATED THAT 'THE CLASS E AIRSPACE AT THE SURFACE WAS IFR, WHAT ARE MY INTENTIONS.' I TOLD THE FSS THAT I WANTED TO LAND BWG VFR AND COULD THEY RECHK FLT VISIBILITY. MY INFLT VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 5 MI. I COULD SEE THE CITY OF BOWLING GREEN AND THE ARPT FROM THE NE. S OF THE ARPT WAS A LOW LYING LAYER OF MIST BUT NONE OF THIS MIST HAD A BEARING ON MY INFLT VISIBILITY. THE FSS ANSWERED SAYING VISIBILITY IS 2 3/4 MI, WHAT ARE MY INTENTIONS. I TOLD THE FSS THAT I WAS VFR AT 3500 FT AND WOULD OVERFLY THE ARPT AT 3500 FT. I PROCEEDED OVER THE N END OF THE ARPT AT 3500 FT VFR AND TURNED BACK TO THE NE. THE FSS ASKED ME AGAIN, 'WHAT ARE MY INTENTIONS.' I TOLD THEM THAT I WAS RETURNING TO LOU. THE FSS STATION TOLD ME THAT I COULD NOT ENTER CLASS E AIRSPACE UNLESS I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED THEM. I TOLD THE FSS THAT I WAS VFR AND MY INFLT VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 3 MI. THE FSS SAID THAT I NEEDED TO FILE IFR OR REMAIN CLR OF THE CLASS E AIRSPACE, THE CLASS E AIRSPACE IS ACTIVE. MY ALT FOR THIS PORTION OF THE FLT WAS AT 3500 FT MSL. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I VIOLATED ANY AIRSPACE OR INFLT RULES BY ENTERING THE CLASS E AIRSPACE. FAR 91.155 (D) RESTRICTS OPS IN THE TFC PATTERN TO AND FROM THE ARPT. I WAS NEVER IN THE TFC PATTERN. WAS I CORRECT WITH MY INTERP OF THIS RULE? SUGGESTION: WHEN I TOLD THE FSS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO LAND VFR AT BWG ARPT, A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ME TO LAND. WHEN I REQUESTED TO LAND, THE FSS COULD HAVE GIVEN ME A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC TO ENTER THE TFC PATTERN. SO, I REMAINED VFR AND RETURNED TO LOU. THE FSS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC AVAILABLE TO THE PLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD SINCE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE FSS AND LEARNED THAT HE COULD HAVE RECEIVED A SPECIAL VFR THROUGH THE ATC ARTCC CTR IF HE WOULD HAVE ASKED. HE THOUGHT THAT BY STATING HOW GOOD THE FLT VISIBILITY WAS, IT WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE SPECIAL VFR CLRNC POSSIBILITY IF AVAILABLE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS SINCE BECOME INST RATED.

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.