cloud flying regulations

[Fox Two]

There has been a few articles in SOARING on this lately, and perhaps a
thread or two. Some have quoted the USA FAR's about flying gliders in
clouds, or to be exact: in conditions less than VMC, but I haven't been
able to locate the actual regs. Do any of you have the specific reg
numbers for the following quotes from Tom Reesor's letter in the August
SOARING magazine?

1. Current FARs require the pilot to be instrument rated in
single-engine airplanes and also have a glider rating ... to fly a
glider in clouds.

2. Gliders flying on instruments are required to have a full gyro
panel.

Thanks in advance, and safe soaring!
Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Terry[_2_]]

> Chris Fleming, F2
> El Paso, Texas
================================================== =======

Visual Flight Rule (VFR) weather minimums are described in 14CFR
91.155. If the weather in your location does not meet those minimums,
you must be operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and comply
with all the requirements of the IFR section of part 91.

For the equipment requirements, 91.205 describes the requirements for
POWERED aircraft, which does not apply to pure gliders but will to what
we call motorgliders. In order to operate under IFR your aircraft must
be authorized by its type certificate to do so. This will be noted in
your flight manual. Without that, operations under IFR would be in
violation of 91.9(a) which requires you to fly in accordance with your
ship's manual.

The certification requirments are described in 14CFR Part 61. In order
to operated under IFR, you need an instrument rating (61.3(e)). You
would also need to meet the recency of experience requirements listed
in 61.57(c) in order to fly IFR.

Long and short, don't do it. There is way too much to hang you with if
you do it. Never mind the implication for us all if God forbid another
airplane operating on a clearance hits you.

[Fox Two]

Thanks for the quick reply, Terry. As an ATP and instrument rated CFI,
I'm intimately familiar with the applicable IFR regs as they apply to
airplanes. Mr. Reesor specifically mentioned "glider" (not
motorglider) when he discussed both pilot and aircraft requirements to
fly in conditions less than VMC, and it is those regs that I'm looking
for.

However, while not quoting the regs, you may have partially addressed
the equipment requirements of the glider. My glider's operating manual
approves "cloud flying" if it is legal to do so in the country the
glider is being operated. But my glider's experimental airworthiness
certificate (limitations) prohibits any operation other than day, VFR.
So, perhaps the equipment requirements would be specified by the FAA
when they issue an airworthiness certificate for a glider that is
approved for IFR flight. I don't know.

In any case, I'm still interested in any regs that require gyros for
gliders operating under IFR, and I have yet to find anywhere where it
mentions that a glider pilot is required to have an instrument rating
in a single-engine airplane to fly a glider under IFR. The original
two questions remain: Which regs require

1. a pilot to be instrument rated in single-engine airplanes and also
have a glider rating ... to fly a glider in clouds, and

2. gliders flying on instruments are required to have a full gyro
panel.

Judgment issues aside, Mr. Reesor appears to be quoting regs. As far
as this thread is concerned, I would like to know what is legal; not
necessarily safe, or smart!

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas



Terry wrote:
>
> Visual Flight Rule (VFR) weather minimums are described in 14CFR
> 91.155. If the weather in your location does not meet those minimums,
> you must be operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and comply
> with all the requirements of the IFR section of part 91.
>
> For the equipment requirements, 91.205 describes the requirements for
> POWERED aircraft, which does not apply to pure gliders but will to what
> we call motorgliders. In order to operate under IFR your aircraft must
> be authorized by its type certificate to do so. This will be noted in
> your flight manual. Without that, operations under IFR would be in
> violation of 91.9(a) which requires you to fly in accordance with your
> ship's manual.
>
> The certification requirments are described in 14CFR Part 61. In order
> to operated under IFR, you need an instrument rating (61.3(e)). You
> would also need to meet the recency of experience requirements listed
> in 61.57(c) in order to fly IFR.
>
> Long and short, don't do it. There is way too much to hang you with if
> you do it. Never mind the implication for us all if God forbid another
> airplane operating on a clearance hits you.

[Terry[_2_]]

Fox Two wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply, Terry. As an ATP and instrument rated CFI,
> I'm intimately familiar with the applicable IFR regs as they apply to
> airplanes. Mr. Reesor specifically mentioned "glider" (not
> motorglider) when he discussed both pilot and aircraft requirements to
> fly in conditions less than VMC, and it is those regs that I'm looking
> for.
> [edit]
The original
> two questions remain: Which regs require
>
> 1. a pilot to be instrument rated in single-engine airplanes and also
> have a glider rating ... to fly a glider in clouds, and
>
> 2. gliders flying on instruments are required to have a full gyro
> panel.
>
> Judgment issues aside, Mr. Reesor appears to be quoting regs. As far
> as this thread is concerned, I would like to know what is legal; not
> necessarily safe, or smart!
>
> Chris Fleming, F2
> El Paso, Texas
>
================================================== ==============
If only it were simple, Chris. It is a bunch of regulations together to
answer your two questions. So I will try to list them in the order that
they appear in the regulation, and I am ready for any arrows to come my
way. I am an examiner and, like you, an ATP with CFI-IA-ASE-G.

First, the certification requirements, as I stated before:
>>The certification requirments are described in 14CFR Part 61. In order
> > to operated under IFR, you need an instrument rating (61.3(e)).

According to 61.5(b)(6), instrument ratings are only available to
holders of private and commercial pilots with one of these categories:
(i) airplane; (ii) helicopter, or (iii) powered lift. Since there is no
glider in the list, you must also hold at least one of these categories
in order to comply with 61.3(e). Airplane Single Engine Land with an
Instrument Airplane rating would work. You as an ATP already know that
certificate replaces your instrument rating.

> > You would also need to meet the recency of experience requirements listed
> > in 61.57(c) in order to fly IFR.

Note that this regulation does add special rules for glider pilots in
61.57(c)(2) which specifies that airplane instrument experience is OK
for some of the requirements only if not carrying passengers, otherwise
the time must be in a glider.

> > For the equipment requirements, 91.205 describes the requirements for
> > POWERED aircraft, which does not apply to pure gliders but will to what
> > we call motorgliders. In order to operate under IFR your aircraft must
> > be authorized by its type certificate to do so. This will be noted in
> > your flight manual. Without that, operations under IFR would be in
> > violation of 91.9(a) which requires you to fly in accordance with your
> > ship's manual.

Full gyro panel? Well it again depends. The list in 91.205(d) applies
to a Ximango or other airplane-like gliders if the type certificate
allows instrument flight. Otherwise, it is whatever the manufacturer
states. For instance, the SGS 2-33 that is so often derided here,
allows flight with just an airspeed indicator according to the
"Flight-Erection-Maintenance Manual," but specifically prohibits
instrument flight regardless of instrumentation. The Grob G103 states
that VFR Day is approved, but then lists minimum equipment for both
cockpit seats of airspeed and altimeter.

So the answer to your second question is either 91.203 AND the
AFM----OR---just the AFM.

I hope that is clearer and with better grammar than the last one.

Terry Claussen
Estrella

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Terry wrote:

> Visual Flight Rule (VFR) weather minimums are described in 14CFR
> 91.155. If the weather in your location does not meet those minimums,
> you must be operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and comply
> with all the requirements of the IFR section of part 91.
>
> For the equipment requirements, 91.205 describes the requirements for
> POWERED aircraft, which does not apply to pure gliders but will to what
> we call motorgliders. In order to operate under IFR your aircraft must
> be authorized by its type certificate to do so. This will be noted in
> your flight manual. Without that, operations under IFR would be in
> violation of 91.9(a) which requires you to fly in accordance with your
> ship's manual.
>
> The certification requirments are described in 14CFR Part 61. In order
> to operated under IFR, you need an instrument rating (61.3(e)). You
> would also need to meet the recency of experience requirements listed
> in 61.57(c) in order to fly IFR.
>
> Long and short, don't do it. There is way too much to hang you with if
> you do it.

Are you using IFR to mean IMC? I know at least one glider pilot that
flies IFR in his glider - Carl Herold. I don't think he flies it in IMC,
but I don't know for sure.

> Never mind the implication for us all if God forbid another
> airplane operating on a clearance hits you.

Can't that happen in broad daylight to a VFR glider? At least the IFR
glider would have a transponder and be in contact with ATC.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Fox Two]

Terry,

Yeah, learning how to correlate multiple regulations together is an art
form, isn't it?! I've followed your bread crumbs, and this is what
I've found:

CFAR § 61.3(e)(3) states that a glider pilot must have an airplane
instrument rating to fly a glider IFR:

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and
an airplane instrument rating.

But it doesn't say that (s)he needs to hold a single-engine class
rating as Mr. Reesor states. However, CFAR § 61.57(d)(1)(iii) states
that if a glider pilot chooses to complete an instrument proficiency
check in an airplane, it must be a single-engine airplane:

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
(d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as provided in paragraph (e)
of this section, a person who does not meet the instrument experience
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the prescribed
time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may not
serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than
the minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument
proficiency check consisting of a representative number of tasks
required by the instrument rating practical test.
(1) The instrument proficiency check must be-
(iii) For a glider, in a single-engine airplane or a glider.

So, we've answered the first question: Yes, glider pilots must have an
instrument rating in airplanes to fly a glider in the clouds, but it
doesn't have to be a single-engine airplane. But the second question
is still in limbo: are gliders (not motorgliders) that fly in clouds
required to have a full gyro panel? Again, I'm looking for the reg
that says so; anybody who has had just ten minutes of instrument
training knows that aircraft control is impossible without attitude
reference. You referenced CFAR § 91.9, but that reg only applies to
Airplanes and Rotorcraft, not gliders.

I will concede, again, that the operator must comply with any
limitations that the FAA issues with an airworthiness certificate that
approves a glider for IFR. I haven't ever seen one of those, though,
so I have no idea whether it would specify the required instruments.

As for the arrows you are expecting to fall from the sky -- they won't
be coming from my bow!

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Stefan]

Fox Two schrieb:

> But the second question
> is still in limbo: are gliders (not motorgliders) that fly in clouds
> required to have a full gyro panel?

For those gliders which are approved for cloud flying by the
manufactorer, the POH states the minimum panel required by the
manufactorer to do so. E.g. DG requires for its gliders T&B and vario,
LS requires T&B, vario, compensated compass and a speed indicator with
only one revolution. (Note: Both require a turn indicator, but none a
horizon! The reason is clear: The horizon can drift, the turn indicator
cannot. However it's debatebal whether you should enter a cloud without
a horizon in a modern slippery glider.)

Your country's regulations may ask for more. The requirements in my
country happen to be the same as those of LS. Airwothiness certificates
which include cloud flying are pretty common around here. Of course the
glider must fulfill the requirements of the manufactorer as well as the
legal ones to get one. (Usually it's written in the certificate:
Approved for cloud flying if the panel meets the requirements.)

As I understand, you didn't find an appropriate regulation for the US.
As cloud flying in gliders seems to be exotic in the USA, chances are,
there is none such regulation. Why not ask the FAA directly? It may be
difficult to find somebody who knows, but *somebody* must know it.
Alternatively, ask your glider's manufactorer. Those folks tend to be
well informed.

Stefan

[Andy[_1_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

"Can't that happen in broad daylight to a VFR glider? At least the IFR
glider would have a transponder and be in contact with ATC. "

I researched this years ago and concluded that, as the holder of an
airplane instrument rating and a glider rating, I could fly a suitably
equipped glider in class G airspace, in cloud, without an instrument
flight plan, without a transponder, and without talking to ATC.

I interpreted suitably equipped as meaning the instruments required by
the type certificate for cloud flying (ASW19b std airworthiness).
Experimental certificates may include different restrictions such as
day VFR only.

The reason for much class G airspace is that there is no radar
coverage. I had identified a suitable area near Bagdad, Arizona.

No I didn't do it as I didn't want to buy a gyro and then have to
remove it for contests.

Andy

[588]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> That raised the question of whether you could ever get an
> IFR clearance in a glider that couldn't hold altitude -
> maybe a cruise clearance? The other option seemed to be a
> waiver and a Letter of Agreement to get a block of airspace
> similar to a wave window. I think the latter would be a
> first, but given that glider cloudflying is legal in many
> other countries, it might be possible to set it up.

The issuing of block altitude clearances to powered aircraft was not
unusual in my IFR experience (through 2002), often ad hoc without
prior written or other pre-planned arrangements.

Would it be so different fro a glider?


Jack

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> FAR 91.9 applies to "civil aircraft," which includes
> gliders. It's true that it references "Airplane or
> Rotorcraft Flight Manual" in parts, which does not cover
> gliders, but it also references "markings, and placards, or
> as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of
> the country of registry." I've always understood that the
> latter applies to gliders.
>

Hi Todd,

Yes, CFAR § 91.9 (attached below) applies to all civil airdcraft,
including gliders, but any mention of a Flight Manual is specifically
limited to airplanes and rotorcraft, not gliders. And yes,
"...markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry" would apply to
gliders, but only the "...or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry." (i.e. the
limitations that the FAA issues with an airworthiness certificate)
would specify the required instruments to be IFR legal.

Again, I'm not declaring that my interpretation is final or correct!
I'm hoping that somebody out there can find a reg that says "Chris,
you're wrong!" In Tom Reesor's letter in the August SOARING magazine,
he claimed that gliders flying in clouds are required to have a "full
gyro panel." I want to find where it says that.

According to my glider's flight manual, to be approved for "cloud
flying," the only gyro I require is a "turn & bank indicator with slip
ball." That single instrument is far from the "full gyro panel" Mr.
Reesor claims (e.g. attitude indicator & directional gyro). But since
§ 91.9 doesn't limit gliders to their flight manuals, I assume the FAA
would specify those limitations when they issue a glider's
airworthiness certificate without a VFR-only restriction.

Until then, I'll maintain VFR at all times!
Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas




CFAR § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard
requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft-

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by
§21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a
current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual
provided for in §121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required
by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a
current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual
material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

(c) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that
aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter.

(d) Any person taking off or landing a helicopter certificated under
part 29 of this chapter at a heliport constructed over water may make
such momentary flight as is necessary for takeoff or landing through
the prohibited range of the limiting height-speed envelope established
for the helicopter if that flight through the prohibited range takes
place over water on which a safe ditching can be accomplished and if
the helicopter is amphibious or is equipped with floats or other
emergency flotation gear adequate to accomplish a safe emergency
ditching on open water.

[Fox Two]

> "Andy" > wrote:
>
> >I researched this years ago and concluded that, as the holder of an
> >airplane instrument rating and a glider rating, I could fly a suitably
> >equipped glider in class G airspace, in cloud, without an instrument
> >flight plan, without a transponder, and without talking to ATC.

Andy,

That is correct. CFAR § 91.173 states that an IFR flight plan and ATC
clearance is only required when operating under IFR in controlled
airspace, and CFAR § 1.1 states that Class G airspace is not
controlled airspace. CFAR § 91.215 doesn't require transponders in
Class G airspace, and gliders are exempt from transponder requirements
above 10,000 feet. But, CFAR § 91.126(d) states that you do require
two-way radio communications with ATC in one rare circumstance.



>T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> That raised the question of whether you could ever get an
> IFR clearance in a glider that couldn't hold altitude -
> maybe a cruise clearance? The other option seemed to be a
> waiver and a Letter of Agreement to get a block of airspace
> similar to a wave window. I think the latter would be a
> first, but given that glider cloudflying is legal in many
> other countries, it might be possible to set it up.

Todd,

A glider can accept a block altitude clearance. While operating VFR, I
routinely receive and accept such clearances from ATC (e.g.
"...maintain block altitude 12,000 to 16,000 feet." I would safely
assume that the same would be true for operating under IFR.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Andy[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
"To get a block clearance you'll have to convince
ATC, who may know nothing about gliders or glider IFR regs
to issue it, and while legal, it's probably something
they've never done."

And its also true that a clearance from ATC does not make the operation
legal. ATC will provide instrument clearances to non instrument rated
pilots, non instrument current pilots, pilots of improperly equipped
aircraft etc. They have no idea if the person making the request is
qualified, capable, or legal.

I'd like to hear more about the case(s) of reckless IFR operation in
class G. Can someone provide on-line references?

Andy

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> This is all classic FAR regulation reading, and I don't
> disagree, but there is still risk that the FAA will consider
> flight in Class G in IMC to be careless or reckless. They
> have done it at least once.

I would be curious to know the rest of the story of that particular
violation. I would expect that the pilot in question did something
else, besides flying a glider in less than minimum VFR conditions in
uncontrolled airspace, to warrant FAA action. After all, people fly
airplanes IFR in Class G airspace every day!

Careless or reckless? Many people think that all glider pilots are
crazy. "Flying without an engine? You're nuts!" My local FAA ATC
safety officer said that. Don't get me wrong, he's a great guy! My
point is that 'careless and reckless' is relative. Contest finishes,
rope drops, thermalling 400 feet AGL and two dozen gliders maneuvering
for best position in a tight gaggle ... all could be argued as careless
or reckless. For us, each is an every day event. For a transient GA
pilot, however, each would be shocking.

>
> By commenting on a possible waiver/LOA option I certainly
> wasn't denying that a block clearance was legal, I was just
> looking at other options that might work for cloud flying in
> gliders. To get a block clearance you'll have to convince
> ATC, who may know nothing about gliders or glider IFR regs
> to issue it, and while legal, it's probably something
> they've never done. I'm interested in who's actually done
> this and what their experience was. I would think an
> initial sit-down with ATC would probably be helpful.

I absolutley agree on all counts. Our club has an annual safety
meeting with our local ATC to help us better understand each other's
operations and concerns.

In El Paso, we have a perfect mountain wave generator (the Franklin
Mountains) just six miles upwind of the El Paso International Airport.
I asked them to move their airport so that I could climb unobstructed
in the wave, but they said no. So, I have to climb in the secondary
wave (which usually sits on the final approach fix for their primary
runway when the wind favors mountain waves) to 17,000 feet, then I
transition to the primary wave that sits about two miles west of the
airport. While I maintain VFR, ATC blocks off a three-dimensional box
of airspace for me to play. Obviously, everything is on a
workload-permitting basis, but I have been batting better than 600 on
getting clearances through their airspace. Getting the transponder
waiver is a non-event.

My motivation for starting this thread is to be able to climb into
Class A airspace. I'm taking delivery of a new D2 this winter, and
getting it certified for IFR would cost the same as getting a VFR-only
limitation on my experimental airworthiness certificate. Hence, I am
still trying to find an FAR that requires more than just the "turn &
bank indicator with slip ball" to get a glider certified IFR.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Mike Schumann]

In addition to these instruments, I suspect that you would need a Mode C
transponder and need to file an IFR flight plan.

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Fox Two" > wrote:
>
>>Yes, CFAR § 91.9 (attached below) applies to all civil airdcraft,
>>including gliders, but any mention of a Flight Manual is specifically
>>limited to airplanes and rotorcraft, not gliders.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>And yes,
>>"...markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
>>certificating authority of the country of registry" would apply to
>>gliders, but only the "...or as otherwise prescribed by the
>>certificating authority of the country of registry." (i.e. the
>>limitations that the FAA issues with an airworthiness certificate)
>>would specify the required instruments to be IFR legal.
>
> I presume any marking or placard relating to IFR flight
> would have to be complied with under 91.9, but my main
> comment was just that 91.9 does apply to gliders, even
> though I agree it's more limited in its application than it
> is to airplanes and rotorcraft.
>
>>Again, I'm not declaring that my interpretation is final or correct!
>>I'm hoping that somebody out there can find a reg that says "Chris,
>>you're wrong!"
>
> And my comment is that as far as I can tell, you are not
> wrong.
>
>>In Tom Reesor's letter in the August SOARING magazine,
>>he claimed that gliders flying in clouds are required to have a "full
>>gyro panel." I want to find where it says that.
>
> I don't think it is anywhere to be found, but like you, if
> my research was wrong or out of date, I'm interested in
> knowing that.
>
>>According to my glider's flight manual, to be approved for "cloud
>>flying," the only gyro I require is a "turn & bank indicator with slip
>>ball." That single instrument is far from the "full gyro panel" Mr.
>>Reesor claims (e.g. attitude indicator & directional gyro).
>
> I believe that is all that is required instrument-wise. If
> any more is required, I believe it would be required
> indirectly because the FAA concluded that flying with less
> is "careless or reckless." I'm not aware of any ruling on
> that issue.
>
>>But since
>>§ 91.9 doesn't limit gliders to their flight manuals, I assume the FAA
>>would specify those limitations when they issue a glider's
>>airworthiness certificate without a VFR-only restriction.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you think you
> could ignore a "VFR only" limitation in the POH if it's not
> in the airworthiness cert?
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Mike Schumann]

Can ATC see you without a transponder?

Mike Schumann

"Fox Two" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>>
>> This is all classic FAR regulation reading, and I don't
>> disagree, but there is still risk that the FAA will consider
>> flight in Class G in IMC to be careless or reckless. They
>> have done it at least once.
>
> I would be curious to know the rest of the story of that particular
> violation. I would expect that the pilot in question did something
> else, besides flying a glider in less than minimum VFR conditions in
> uncontrolled airspace, to warrant FAA action. After all, people fly
> airplanes IFR in Class G airspace every day!
>
> Careless or reckless? Many people think that all glider pilots are
> crazy. "Flying without an engine? You're nuts!" My local FAA ATC
> safety officer said that. Don't get me wrong, he's a great guy! My
> point is that 'careless and reckless' is relative. Contest finishes,
> rope drops, thermalling 400 feet AGL and two dozen gliders maneuvering
> for best position in a tight gaggle ... all could be argued as careless
> or reckless. For us, each is an every day event. For a transient GA
> pilot, however, each would be shocking.
>
>>
>> By commenting on a possible waiver/LOA option I certainly
>> wasn't denying that a block clearance was legal, I was just
>> looking at other options that might work for cloud flying in
>> gliders. To get a block clearance you'll have to convince
>> ATC, who may know nothing about gliders or glider IFR regs
>> to issue it, and while legal, it's probably something
>> they've never done. I'm interested in who's actually done
>> this and what their experience was. I would think an
>> initial sit-down with ATC would probably be helpful.
>
> I absolutley agree on all counts. Our club has an annual safety
> meeting with our local ATC to help us better understand each other's
> operations and concerns.
>
> In El Paso, we have a perfect mountain wave generator (the Franklin
> Mountains) just six miles upwind of the El Paso International Airport.
> I asked them to move their airport so that I could climb unobstructed
> in the wave, but they said no. So, I have to climb in the secondary
> wave (which usually sits on the final approach fix for their primary
> runway when the wind favors mountain waves) to 17,000 feet, then I
> transition to the primary wave that sits about two miles west of the
> airport. While I maintain VFR, ATC blocks off a three-dimensional box
> of airspace for me to play. Obviously, everything is on a
> workload-permitting basis, but I have been batting better than 600 on
> getting clearances through their airspace. Getting the transponder
> waiver is a non-event.
>
> My motivation for starting this thread is to be able to climb into
> Class A airspace. I'm taking delivery of a new D2 this winter, and
> getting it certified for IFR would cost the same as getting a VFR-only
> limitation on my experimental airworthiness certificate. Hence, I am
> still trying to find an FAR that requires more than just the "turn &
> bank indicator with slip ball" to get a glider certified IFR.
>
> Chris Fleming, F2
> El Paso, Texas
>

[Fox Two]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> In addition to these instruments, I suspect that you would need a Mode C
> transponder and need to file an IFR flight plan.
>
> Mike Schumann

That is incorrect: transponders are not required to fly IFR. CFAR §
91.205(d) lists the instrument and equipment requirements for IFR
flight of powered aircraft (not gliders), and does not include
transponders. CFAR § 91.215 lists transponder requirements for all
aircraft (including gliders) and does not include IFR flight. And IFR
flight plans are only required if you operate IFR within controlled
airspace, as per CFAR § 91.173.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Fox Two]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Can ATC see you without a transponder?
>
> Mike Schumann

Sometimes. In a non-transponder equipped glider, ATC can usually see
your primary radar return if your groundspeed is above 60 knots (this
depends on several factors). When my groundspeed decreases
significantly (common when climbing in mountain wave), ATC usually
informs me that they have lost radar contact, and ask me for a position
update.

I almost received a waiver from ATC to climb VFR above FL180 once, but
a supervisor stepped in at the last minute and denied my request.
Gliders are not exempt from having transponders in Class A airspace; I
don't think he had a problem with the VFR waiver.

Interesting stuff.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> >"Fox Two" > wrote:
> >But since
> >§ 91.9 doesn't limit gliders to their flight manuals, I assume the FAA
> >would specify those limitations when they issue a glider's
> >airworthiness certificate without a VFR-only restriction.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you think you
> could ignore a "VFR only" limitation in the POH if it's not
> in the airworthiness cert?
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

I wouldn't ever push that interpretation, Todd! Personally, I would
always follow the more restrictive limitation! But as an academic
exercise, your question is valid. From personal experience, I've
noticed that whenever a manufaturer has a limitation such as "VFR only"
or "Spins Prohibited," a corresponding cockpit placard exists. And, as
we've already agreed, gliders are limited by the placards specidied by
CFAR § 91.9(a).

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Frank Whiteley]

Fox Two wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
> > Can ATC see you without a transponder?
> >
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Sometimes. In a non-transponder equipped glider, ATC can usually see
> your primary radar return if your groundspeed is above 60 knots (this
> depends on several factors). When my groundspeed decreases
> significantly (common when climbing in mountain wave), ATC usually
> informs me that they have lost radar contact, and ask me for a position
> update.
>
> I almost received a waiver from ATC to climb VFR above FL180 once, but
> a supervisor stepped in at the last minute and denied my request.
> Gliders are not exempt from having transponders in Class A airspace; I
> don't think he had a problem with the VFR waiver.
>
> Interesting stuff.
>
> Chris Fleming, F2
> El Paso, Texas
I'm told some soaring pilots operating locally request discrete
transponder codes and receive flight following and are offered climbs
and cruise blocks above FL180 occassionally. Useful when cloud base
may exceed FL240. This may be more common in California/Nevada due to
long time agreements and experience. A former partner of mine once
wrote up an article for the PASCO newsletter about blocking FL220-260?
and cruising about 115miles from Truckee to Mt Whitney without turning.
I don't think he was transponder equipped for that flight.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[Fox Two]

Andy wrote:
> I checked the restrictions attached to my experimental (exhibition and
> air racing) airworthiness certificate. It is dated March 2002 and I
> believe all recent experimental certificates will follow the same
> "boilerplate".
>
> Andy

Hi Andy,

Yeah, mine says exactly the same thing. I've always assumed that my
experimental airworthiness limitations were just copied from the master
certification book that includes MiG-21's. CFAR § 91.205 specifically
applies to powered aircraft and not gliders, but as my limitations are
written, they now apply to me to. I intend to visit my DAR later this
week to see if that was an oversight, or intentional on his part.
After all, I don't know how I could possibly comply with the
requirement to have a generator or alternator on board!

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Fox Two" > wrote:
>
> >>there is still risk that the FAA will consider
> >> flight in Class G in IMC to be careless or reckless. They
> >> have done it at least once.
> >
> >I would be curious to know the rest of the story of that particular
> >violation.
>
> Here's some more info - I haven't gone to the original cases
> yet, perhaps tonight I'll do so, but if you track down any
> of this and think there's something interesting there, I'm
> interested in hearing your thoughts. This is from a 1994
> post in rec.aviation.ifr:
> -------------------------------------

Hi Todd,

My opinion? The pilot was careless and reckless, and should have been
violated.

In his specific case, he was denied an IFR clearance due to traffic,
and he chose to circumvent the system by charging forward anyway
without a clearance. This is no different to me that running a red
light at full speed through a busy intersection. He was a noodle head!

The judge referenced an earlier case that also involved flying IFR
through the Class G airspace underlying a transition area. The Class G
airspace in question, while technically the same airspace as the Class
G out west that extends all the way to 14,500 feet MSL, can be argued
to be different 'in nature.' In my opinion (which appears to be the
same as the judge's), there is a BIG difference between the Class G
airspace that is only 10 miles away from Chicago O'Hare Airport, and
the Class G airsapce that is 100 miles southwest of Albuquerque!

Would I ever depart an airport into IMC without a clearance? Heck no!
Would I fly through a cloud at 13,000 feet while in Class G airspace in
an IFR certified aircraft without a clearance? You bet I would. Do I
plan on doing so? No.

My intention is to fly IFR in Class E and Class A airspace, with an ATC
clearance. Now I need to see if my DAR would be willing to certify a
glider for IFR!

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Fox Two]

Frank Whiteley wrote:

> I'm told some soaring pilots operating locally request discrete
> transponder codes and receive flight following and are offered climbs
> and cruise blocks above FL180 occassionally. Useful when cloud base
> may exceed FL240. This may be more common in California/Nevada due to
> long time agreements and experience. A former partner of mine once
> wrote up an article for the PASCO newsletter about blocking FL220-260?
> and cruising about 115miles from Truckee to Mt Whitney without turning.
> I don't think he was transponder equipped for that flight.
>

Hi Frank,

That's exciting stuff, and encouraging! I would be interested in
reading that article if you can find it.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Al[_1_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Fox Two" > wrote:
>
>>My opinion? The pilot was careless and reckless, and should have been
>>violated.
>
> I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
> the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
> certain of where you stand.
>
> FAR 91.173 is about as short as any reg there is. It just
> says:
> No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace
> under IFR unless that person has--
> (a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
> (b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
>
> If they wanted to require (a) and (b) in Class G too, the
> change is pretty simple, just remove the 3 words "in
> controlled airspace."
>
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Departures in IMC, under IFR, without a clearance are done all the time.
As an example, the weather at Gold Beach, Oregon(4S1), is indefinite,
1/4mile, fog. The airport is in G airspace, and a pirep shows the tops at
500' and the fog extends offshore about a mile. I can, and have, legally
departed this airport to climb to VFR conditions, within uncontrolled
airspace. A clearance is only required to enter controlled airspace. At
this, and many other locations, it is possible to climb over 10,000' without
finding controlled airspace.

Al G

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
> the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
> certain of where you stand.

The pilot didn't violate the IFR reg; but he did knowingly and
intentionally jeopardize the safety of others. He was a noodle-head.
That's why he was violated.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Al[_1_]]

"Fox Two" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
>> the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
>> certain of where you stand.
>
> The pilot didn't violate the IFR reg; but he did knowingly and
> intentionally jeopardize the safety of others. He was a noodle-head.
> That's why he was violated.
>
> Chris Fleming, F2
> El Paso, Texas
>

I wholeheartedly agree.

Al G

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> Both the case and the fog scenario above involve departures
> without a clearance in IMC conditions, and both seem to be
> FAR legal. My problem is that, while they "seem" to be
> legal, the ALJ and the FAA disagree, at least for the two
> cases mentioned, calling it careless/reckless. I'm not sure
> how to interpret that in the context of proposed glider
> cloudflying in class G airspace.
> --


Hi Todd,

While this sub-thread has gone off the primary topic of pilot and
instrument requirements to fly a glider IFR, I'll try to explain this a
different way:

I believe that we all agree that there were no regulations that were
violated in either of these cases, except the "Careless & Reckless"
charge. Flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace without an ATC clearance
is perfectly legal, perfectly safe, and pilots do it every day. But
there is a judgement call that needs to take place. Using CFAR §
91.173 as a 'loophole' to climb through the extremely thin slice of 700
feet of uncontrolled airspace (from an airport that has a published
instrument approach procedure, and possibly an IFR airplane on an
instrument arrival) to enter the conjested controlled airspace of the
Midwest is bad judgement, and by definition: careless & reckless. On
the other hand, there are vast areas in the Western United States that
are uncontrolled all the way up to 14,500 feet MSL. There are
thousands of airports that are hundreds of miles away from lower levels
of controlled airspace. It is in the spirit of accomodating aircraft
in these areas that CFAR § 91.173 was written, not as a loophole to
move to the front of the line to Indianapolis!

Pilots shouldn't be afraid of CFAR § 91.13: Careless & Reckless
Behavior. If you exercise good judgement, and work with the system,
you'll be fine. This reg is for pilots that exerceise bad judgement,
and work against the system.

I hope that helps.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Fox Two]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> I don't think it's very far off topic. My interest has
> always been what is required to cloud fly a glider, and part
> of that interest has always been - "what about class G?"
> I've been trying to determine exactly when you think the
> FAA/NTSB would impose the careless/reckless charge on a
> glider pilot who went cloud flying in class G. I don't
> really care about instrument departures other than for what
> they tell us about gliders in the U.S. Since there are no
> glider/91.173 cases, we can only look at the instrument
> cases.

Todd,

I apologize. Flying gliders IFR is very much on topic.


> So you think the important factors are:
> 1) the departure airport had a published approach.
> 2) it was in the Midwest - not out west.
> 3) it was a loophole to legally do what he couldn't do
> otherwise without a clearance.

Yes, I do. And there are likely to be other factors with this case
that contributed to this pilot's violation that we don't know about,
such as:

1.) Why didn't this pilot get an IFR clearance prior to departure?
2.) Did he get a weather briefing (which is required), and
3.) if he did, why did he depart for an airport that was below
minimums?
4.) Did his departure create a conflict with another aircraft?
5.) What was his attitude/behavior when questioned by ATC?

> I don't disagree, but presumably they did not have to let
> him into the front of the line at Indianapolis, in which
> case he'd have had to maintain VFR and go elsewhere. As to
> accommodating aircraft from small airports out west, don't
> most instrument pilots call and get a clearance with a
> release time and a void time?

ATC simply won't give IFR clearances to aircraft operating from many
(not all!) small, remote airports out west. That is the purpose of the
intentional wording of CFAR § 91.173.

> I used to fly at an airport not far from the NYC Mode C veil
> that was notorious for low level fog. There were pilots who
> would depart through it to get to VMC. Would you consider
> them to be at risk of a 91.13 charge? Did it matter whether
> they intended to go VFR to their destination?

It depends. I know that is a sucky answer, but CFAR § 91.13 is, by
definition, subjective! I'll try to illustrate using two hypothetical
situations from your New York Airport:

Flight 1: A pilot departs without an IFR clearance through 500 feet of
ground fog with visibility just shy of 1 mile. Above the fog,
conditions are clear skies, and unrestricted visibility. The flight
continues VFR to a VFR landing at the destination.

Flight 2: A pilot departs without an IFR clearance through 500 feet of
ground fog with visibility just shy of 1 mile. Above the fog, however,
is an overcast layer at 2,000 feet with widely scattered rain showers.
Many of the other airports in the area are reporting IFR conditions, as
does the destination airport.

While neither of these pilots violated the regs, one can argue that the
2nd pilot exercised poor judgement. If this departure created a
conflict with another aircraft, and the pilot had a "So what, just give
me my clearance already" attitude, then a violation would be probable.

> I'm not sure if it does. Any time that an aircraft is in
> IMC outside of controlled airspace without a clearance,
> there is *some* MAC risk with another aircraft that is
> talking to ATC or doing the same thing. You seem confident
> that it's legal in some circumstances, but not others. The
> IFR magazine article and the two cases cited seemed to say
> that it wasn't all that clear that it was ever legal no
> matter what the FARs seem to say.

Again, this is just my opinion, but one based on a lot of experience
flying IFR, and training and evaluating pilots at all levels of the
system. CFAR § 91.13 is a vital tool for the FAA to protect those of
us that work with the system from those who do not.

> If a glider is in cloud out west in class G, will the pilot
> be more like the fog departure case or the "loophole" case?
> I'd love to see a case that says - yes it's OK to depart in
> fog from an isolated airport to get to VMC and fly VFR. Is
> there such a case?

Unfortunately, we may never have such a case. So all that I can say is
follow your gut. If you aren't comfortable doing something, or a voice
inside you is saying that maybe you should do something else, don't do
it.

Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread. While I believe
it is possible for me to pick up a VFR clearance to operate a non-IFR
equipped glider in class A airspace, I'm not willing to risk my career
on it! I'm trying to work with the system to get an IFR clearance to
operate an IFR-equipped glider in Class A airspace without a waiver.
This is an exercise of legality and good judgement.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

[Bert Willing]

In Germany and in Switzerland, the principle of glider flying in clouds is
that you know that there is a glider at a precise position in that cloud,
and that there is no other glider/aircraft at the same position. In Germany,
an ATC clearance and a fligh plan is mandatory. In Switzerland, you can flow
only in areas which are allocated for cloud flying, and you have to
blind-radio your precise position twice on a frequency allocated for cloud
flying before you enter the cloud.

That all work of course only if there isn't a butthead who enters a cloud
"just because he feels like". I wouldn't say that cloud flying is common
practise in Germany, and in Switzerland it's rather used for training
purposes than for x-country.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Fox Two" > wrote:
> Yes, and that's why it's so tough trying to decide how
> glider cloudflying in class G might be treated. It seems to
> be handled in other countries in a way that gives some US
> trained airplane instrument pilots the willies - and a 91.13
> charge would probably be initiated by someone with exactly
> that background - not a glider background, and certainly not
> a glider instrument background.
>
>>I'm trying to work with the system to get an IFR clearance to
>>operate an IFR-equipped glider in Class A airspace without a waiver.
>>This is an exercise of legality and good judgement.
>
> This is something that I understand some glider pilots have
> managed to do fairly routinely I've read several reports of
> it in both the west and from wave off the eastern ridges.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)