Narrative:

I departed 2v2 at XA40Z on a VFR flight plan to H79, intending to cruise direct at 17500'. En route WX was forecast generally scattered (cold) to clear/hi thin for entire route, but with very favorable (greater 60 KTS) tailwinds at altitude, corresponding reports of widespread (mostly moderate) turbulence along the front range of the rockies, due to mountain wave. I encountered very strong (approximately 1500 FPM) smooth lift following takeoff, and elected to climb out within it southbound (paralleling foothills). I contacted den approach and turned east on course at 17500' over the top of the den TCA, observing some rotor activity below me. After a handoff to center (VFR flight following requested and squawk ok), I observed what appeared to be a line of standing lenticular clouds some distance ahead, with bases at approximately 16000-17000' and tops to 18000'. I was concerned about probable wave turbulence in that area and requested a brief climb to FL190, acknowledging that such would require an IFR pop up, but that I would cancel IFR immediately after clearing that WX and return to 17500' VFR. During this interval I encountered both strong lift and increasing light to moderate turbulence. In hindsight I should simply have requested 'direct goodland' as a clearance, since I was receiving both it and traffic well, and it was now (as a result of my southbound departure from 2v2) directly on my course. I have computer software which generates an RNAV direct VOR based (course, bearing, heading, etc) routing, but am not RNAV-equipped in the airplane. In the course of the pop up procedure, I was asked whether I wished to be cleared 'direct eldon (H79). In an attempt to expedite the clearance under increasing time pressure (strong lift, moderate turbulence, and a deceptively high closure rate on the cloud I did not wish to penetrate or attempt to underfly), I responded in the affirmative I received a clearance to climb to FL190 and direct H79 (which was more difficult to achieve once the lift quit and I was in and out of the layer), but penetrated west/O further incident. I later was given a block altitude clearance to allow for altitude holding difficulties, and cancelled IFR approximately 10-15 mins. Further east after clearing the clouds and descending back to 17500' MSL. My concern is as follows: in the course of the clearance request, given conditions and workload, I accepted an IFR direct clearance, and have some confusion about exact communication between the controller and myself, and interpretation of the far's. At some point, the controller asked me to, when workload permits, air file a complete IFR flight plan with name, address, etc and to verify 'RNAV equipped.' I indicated that I would cancel IFR as soon as possible in any event (which I later did). I did not air file a complete plan (although a VFR plan was filed with FSS), but would not have indicated '/right' equipped in any event. While I admit to some uncertainty (and have heard similar disagreement among CFI-I's concerning interpretation), I believe it is currently legal to file and fly 'IFR direct' west/O RNAV and verify position en route by calculation and reference to VOR's (since this is, after all, what RNAV does). My computer software-generated when I picked up the clearance, some dead-reckoning interpretation of the route as cleared was required on my part. Obviously, again, a request for 'direct goodland' would have avoided all such confusion. I realize now that my concern for flight conditions, both at that time and perceived upcoming, resulted in my haste to accept an inappropriate clearance rather than to risk delay in the process. (As a final note, I have on 2 occasions requested a similar pop up IFR clearance for descent through a thin vertical) broken layer west/O a request for full flight plan. Evidently procedures for operation in positive control airspace are more rigorously formalized?)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACCEPTED CLRNC DIRECT WITHOUT NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT ON BOARD THE ACFT.

Narrative: I DEPARTED 2V2 AT XA40Z ON A VFR FLT PLAN TO H79, INTENDING TO CRUISE DIRECT AT 17500'. ENRTE WX WAS FORECAST GENERALLY SCATTERED (COLD) TO CLR/HI THIN FOR ENTIRE ROUTE, BUT WITH VERY FAVORABLE (GREATER 60 KTS) TAILWINDS AT ALT, CORRESPONDING RPTS OF WIDESPREAD (MOSTLY MODERATE) TURB ALONG THE FRONT RANGE OF THE ROCKIES, DUE TO MOUNTAIN WAVE. I ENCOUNTERED VERY STRONG (APPROX 1500 FPM) SMOOTH LIFT FOLLOWING TKOF, AND ELECTED TO CLB OUT WITHIN IT SBND (PARALLELING FOOTHILLS). I CONTACTED DEN APCH AND TURNED E ON COURSE AT 17500' OVER THE TOP OF THE DEN TCA, OBSERVING SOME ROTOR ACTIVITY BELOW ME. AFTER A HDOF TO CENTER (VFR FLT FOLLOWING REQUESTED AND SQUAWK OK), I OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A LINE OF STANDING LENTICULAR CLOUDS SOME DISTANCE AHEAD, WITH BASES AT APPROX 16000-17000' AND TOPS TO 18000'. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PROBABLE WAVE TURB IN THAT AREA AND REQUESTED A BRIEF CLB TO FL190, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SUCH WOULD REQUIRE AN IFR POP UP, BUT THAT I WOULD CANCEL IFR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CLRING THAT WX AND RETURN TO 17500' VFR. DURING THIS INTERVAL I ENCOUNTERED BOTH STRONG LIFT AND INCREASING LIGHT TO MODERATE TURB. IN HINDSIGHT I SHOULD SIMPLY HAVE REQUESTED 'DIRECT GOODLAND' AS A CLRNC, SINCE I WAS RECEIVING BOTH IT AND TFC WELL, AND IT WAS NOW (AS A RESULT OF MY SBND DEP FROM 2V2) DIRECTLY ON MY COURSE. I HAVE COMPUTER SOFTWARE WHICH GENERATES AN RNAV DIRECT VOR BASED (COURSE, BEARING, HDG, ETC) ROUTING, BUT AM NOT RNAV-EQUIPPED IN THE AIRPLANE. IN THE COURSE OF THE POP UP PROC, I WAS ASKED WHETHER I WISHED TO BE CLRED 'DIRECT ELDON (H79). IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXPEDITE THE CLRNC UNDER INCREASING TIME PRESSURE (STRONG LIFT, MODERATE TURB, AND A DECEPTIVELY HIGH CLOSURE RATE ON THE CLOUD I DID NOT WISH TO PENETRATE OR ATTEMPT TO UNDERFLY), I RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I RECEIVED A CLRNC TO CLB TO FL190 AND DIRECT H79 (WHICH WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE ONCE THE LIFT QUIT AND I WAS IN AND OUT OF THE LAYER), BUT PENETRATED W/O FURTHER INCIDENT. I LATER WAS GIVEN A BLOCK ALT CLRNC TO ALLOW FOR ALT HOLDING DIFFICULTIES, AND CANCELLED IFR APPROX 10-15 MINS. FURTHER E AFTER CLRING THE CLOUDS AND DSNDING BACK TO 17500' MSL. MY CONCERN IS AS FOLLOWS: IN THE COURSE OF THE CLRNC REQUEST, GIVEN CONDITIONS AND WORKLOAD, I ACCEPTED AN IFR DIRECT CLRNC, AND HAVE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT EXACT COM BTWN THE CTLR AND MYSELF, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FAR'S. AT SOME POINT, THE CTLR ASKED ME TO, WHEN WORKLOAD PERMITS, AIR FILE A COMPLETE IFR FLT PLAN WITH NAME, ADDRESS, ETC AND TO VERIFY 'RNAV EQUIPPED.' I INDICATED THAT I WOULD CANCEL IFR ASAP IN ANY EVENT (WHICH I LATER DID). I DID NOT AIR FILE A COMPLETE PLAN (ALTHOUGH A VFR PLAN WAS FILED WITH FSS), BUT WOULD NOT HAVE INDICATED '/R' EQUIPPED IN ANY EVENT. WHILE I ADMIT TO SOME UNCERTAINTY (AND HAVE HEARD SIMILAR DISAGREEMENT AMONG CFI-I'S CONCERNING INTERPRETATION), I BELIEVE IT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL TO FILE AND FLY 'IFR DIRECT' W/O RNAV AND VERIFY POS ENRTE BY CALCULATION AND REF TO VOR'S (SINCE THIS IS, AFTER ALL, WHAT RNAV DOES). MY COMPUTER SOFTWARE-GENERATED WHEN I PICKED UP THE CLRNC, SOME DEAD-RECKONING INTERPRETATION OF THE ROUTE AS CLRED WAS REQUIRED ON MY PART. OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, A REQUEST FOR 'DIRECT GOODLAND' WOULD HAVE AVOIDED ALL SUCH CONFUSION. I REALIZE NOW THAT MY CONCERN FOR FLT CONDITIONS, BOTH AT THAT TIME AND PERCEIVED UPCOMING, RESULTED IN MY HASTE TO ACCEPT AN INAPPROPRIATE CLRNC RATHER THAN TO RISK DELAY IN THE PROCESS. (AS A FINAL NOTE, I HAVE ON 2 OCCASIONS REQUESTED A SIMILAR POP UP IFR CLRNC FOR DSCNT THROUGH A THIN VERT) BROKEN LAYER W/O A REQUEST FOR FULL FLT PLAN. EVIDENTLY PROCS FOR OPERATION IN POSITIVE CTL AIRSPACE ARE MORE RIGOROUSLY FORMALIZED?)

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.