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.