cloud flying regulations

"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

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

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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