A VFR HAWKER 800 FLC LANDS THEIR ACFT ON THE PARALLEL TXWY TO RWY 18 SUPPOSEDLY IN ACCORD WITH THE NOTAM PUBLISHED FOR JAC; WY.

Narrative

I CHKED NOTAMS BEFORE THE FLT. NOTED RWY 18/36 CLOSED. PARALLEL TXWY WAS TO BE USED FOR LNDG. I THEN CALLED DISPATCH AND WAS PATCHED TO THE CHIEF PLT. WENT OVER DETAILS WITH HIM AND CLRED TO GO. THE NOTAM STATES CATEGORY A AND B ACFT ONLY. I PLANNED AND DEPARTED SO AS TO HAVE A VREF OF LESS THAN 120 KTS. WE CANCELED IFR 10 MI SW OF JAC AND MADE A VISUAL ON RWY 18. AFTER LNDG THE LCL SHERIFF ASKED TO SPEAK WITH ME. HE SAID WE WERE NOT ON A LIST AND HE HAD TO MAKE A RPT. I ASKED WHAT THIS WAS IN REGARDS TO AND HE STATED ONLY CATEGORY A AND B ACFT CAN LAND AT THIS ARPT. I STATED THAT WE LANDED AT A WT THAT GAVE US A SPD BELOW CATEGORY B LIMITS. GAVE HIM A COPY OF WT AND BAL TO SHOW LNDG WT. I THEN LOOKED UP PART 97 (STANDARD INST APCH PROCS) 97.3(B) STATES CATEGORIES ARE PREDICTED ON MAX CERTIFICATED LNDG WT. THE HAWKER-8001P IS CATEGORY C. BEFORE DEP I DETERMINED THAT CONDITIONS AT THE ARPT WOULD BE VFR. THIS; AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND; DOES NOT INCLUDE THE A AND B LIMITATION BECAUSE WE CANCELED IFR AND ENTERED THE PATTERN AND LANDED VFR. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOTAM WAS TO ALLOW ONLY CATEGORY A AND B ACFT TO SHOOT IFR APCHS. PART 97 IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR VISUAL FLT OPS. THE ONLY REASON FOR AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS TO GO ABOVE 18000 FT FOR ACFT PERFORMANCE. I BELIEVE THAT LCL AUTHS DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO MAKE UP A NOTAM AND IF THEY HAD CONSULTED WITH SOMEONE LIKE PLT'S GROUP IT COULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR INTENTIONS. I ALSO BELIEVE WE HAVE A CASE OF 'APPLES AND ORANGES' PART 97 REFERS TO INSTS; NOT VFR OPS.