Narrative:

While returning from a final chkout in my first taildragger, my civilian instructor and I were heading roughly 070 degrees from fhr, VFR at 1200 ft MSL. The WX was not unusual for this part of the northwest with a scattered layer reported hovering at 1100 ft MSL in the vicinity of nuw. As we closed on the field, or more specifically, as we flew further out over the water, the clouds seemed to be slightly lower in places, and I had to 'pick my way around' in order to remain VFR. The cloud layer was indistinct, however, I had no problem finding my way back to whidbey island and remaining VFR in the citabria, which is a VFR-only aircraft. Since the aircraft has no navaids, I took a general heading that would minimize my time over water. Usually, I transit the distance between the islands at a higher altitude in consideration of glide distance in the event of power loss. Nonetheless, the controller asked me if I was having 'difficulty finding the field,' and I replied that I was deviating slightly for WX as I was actually heading about 20 degrees north of the field -- a shorter and more comfortable overwater leg. Apparently, several aircraft were having difficulty with the WX, and the controller soon asked me for a PIREP. As I am a military aviator, I immediately and instinctively replied that 'over water the bottoms were anywhere from 850-900 ft MSL and that the WX over friday harbor was pretty good.' my instructor then stated that I had just flight-violated myself by putting myself on report in a VFR-only aircraft that requires 1000 ft/3 mi. In fact, not long after we landed, the field suspended VFR operations for all aircraft even though ceilings were not below approximately 1300 ft MSL over the field, which is at 47 ft MSL. Even though I had not significantly broken any altitude restrs, I could easily determine the cloud layers by gauging my own altitude. MVFR WX is exactly that, and consequently, I wonder how to handle this situation in the future? There is no textbook answer, as aviation is an inexact science, yet I have seen many pilots report what they need to in order to stay out of trouble in place of reporting the truth. Where should one draw the line in such a matter? I ask this question because I have always regarded flight controllers as teammates, and I do not think anything short of the truth is acceptable when reporting information that may be of use to other aviators or controllers in making decisions. Perhaps I should have simply been more descriptive. I believe that on this VFR approach, the WX was certainly right at the minimums on parts of the overwater leg. However, I do not think that I operated my aircraft in an unsafe manner that endangered myself, my instructor passenger, or anyone else in the air or on the water. I would certainly appreciate any advice or guidance that could be provided to me on the matter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CH71 TRAINEE AND INSTRUCTOR FLEW VFR IN IMC.

Narrative: WHILE RETURNING FROM A FINAL CHKOUT IN MY FIRST TAILDRAGGER, MY CIVILIAN INSTRUCTOR AND I WERE HDG ROUGHLY 070 DEGS FROM FHR, VFR AT 1200 FT MSL. THE WX WAS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THIS PART OF THE NW WITH A SCATTERED LAYER RPTED HOVERING AT 1100 FT MSL IN THE VICINITY OF NUW. AS WE CLOSED ON THE FIELD, OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, AS WE FLEW FURTHER OUT OVER THE WATER, THE CLOUDS SEEMED TO BE SLIGHTLY LOWER IN PLACES, AND I HAD TO 'PICK MY WAY AROUND' IN ORDER TO REMAIN VFR. THE CLOUD LAYER WAS INDISTINCT, HOWEVER, I HAD NO PROB FINDING MY WAY BACK TO WHIDBEY ISLAND AND REMAINING VFR IN THE CITABRIA, WHICH IS A VFR-ONLY ACFT. SINCE THE ACFT HAS NO NAVAIDS, I TOOK A GENERAL HDG THAT WOULD MINIMIZE MY TIME OVER WATER. USUALLY, I TRANSIT THE DISTANCE BTWN THE ISLANDS AT A HIGHER ALT IN CONSIDERATION OF GLIDE DISTANCE IN THE EVENT OF PWR LOSS. NONETHELESS, THE CTLR ASKED ME IF I WAS HAVING 'DIFFICULTY FINDING THE FIELD,' AND I REPLIED THAT I WAS DEVIATING SLIGHTLY FOR WX AS I WAS ACTUALLY HDG ABOUT 20 DEGS N OF THE FIELD -- A SHORTER AND MORE COMFORTABLE OVERWATER LEG. APPARENTLY, SEVERAL ACFT WERE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THE WX, AND THE CTLR SOON ASKED ME FOR A PIREP. AS I AM A MIL AVIATOR, I IMMEDIATELY AND INSTINCTIVELY REPLIED THAT 'OVER WATER THE BOTTOMS WERE ANYWHERE FROM 850-900 FT MSL AND THAT THE WX OVER FRIDAY HARBOR WAS PRETTY GOOD.' MY INSTRUCTOR THEN STATED THAT I HAD JUST FLT-VIOLATED MYSELF BY PUTTING MYSELF ON RPT IN A VFR-ONLY ACFT THAT REQUIRES 1000 FT/3 MI. IN FACT, NOT LONG AFTER WE LANDED, THE FIELD SUSPENDED VFR OPS FOR ALL ACFT EVEN THOUGH CEILINGS WERE NOT BELOW APPROX 1300 FT MSL OVER THE FIELD, WHICH IS AT 47 FT MSL. EVEN THOUGH I HAD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY BROKEN ANY ALT RESTRS, I COULD EASILY DETERMINE THE CLOUD LAYERS BY GAUGING MY OWN ALT. MVFR WX IS EXACTLY THAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY, I WONDER HOW TO HANDLE THIS SIT IN THE FUTURE? THERE IS NO TEXTBOOK ANSWER, AS AVIATION IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE, YET I HAVE SEEN MANY PLTS RPT WHAT THEY NEED TO IN ORDER TO STAY OUT OF TROUBLE IN PLACE OF RPTING THE TRUTH. WHERE SHOULD ONE DRAW THE LINE IN SUCH A MATTER? I ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS REGARDED FLT CTLRS AS TEAMMATES, AND I DO NOT THINK ANYTHING SHORT OF THE TRUTH IS ACCEPTABLE WHEN RPTING INFO THAT MAY BE OF USE TO OTHER AVIATORS OR CTLRS IN MAKING DECISIONS. PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY BEEN MORE DESCRIPTIVE. I BELIEVE THAT ON THIS VFR APCH, THE WX WAS CERTAINLY RIGHT AT THE MINIMUMS ON PARTS OF THE OVERWATER LEG. HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK THAT I OPERATED MY ACFT IN AN UNSAFE MANNER THAT ENDANGERED MYSELF, MY INSTRUCTOR PAX, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE AIR OR ON THE WATER. I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE OR GUIDANCE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED TO ME ON THE MATTER.

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.