Narrative:

My student and I met to begin a local training flight in an small aircraft. As we were preflting the aircraft, the mechanic came out and began removing the transponder. I asked him if he had a waiver for the aircraft, since we are under the 30 NM veil of the stl TCA. The chief pilot, mr X, came out of the hangar and informed me that no waiver is required to fly with the transponder inoperative or removed. He said the stl tower personnel gave verbal permission, but refused to grant a waiver or put anything in writing to that effect. The verbal message from stl ATC is to fly the no-transponder- equipped aircraft without benefit of a waiver or a written permission form. Since the chief pilot said it was ok, I flew the aircraft for the training flight. I believe the ATC folks should either grant a waiver or put something down in writing when they ok the no-transponder training flts under the TCA veil. As things stand now, I feel it necessary to submit a NASA form just in case the local FSDO decides the verbal ATC permission to fly is not good enough. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the airport from which operating is approximately 10 mi from the primary airport of the TCA. That is the reason for such concern. Previous times when situation has occurred, tower has issued an identifying number and a date of expiration of waiver. Pilot then has some record to refer to should any problem arise. In this situation instructor is left with only verbal permission and no record. Believes strongly that some policy should be established so that some record exists that proper procedures were followed. Otherwise the instructor pilot is left hanging in the wind. One person's word against another.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR FLEW WITH SPI WITHIN THE 30 MI VEIL, NOT WITHIN THE TCA, WITHOUT TRANSPONDER.

Narrative: MY STUDENT AND I MET TO BEGIN A LCL TRAINING FLT IN AN SMA. AS WE WERE PREFLTING THE ACFT, THE MECH CAME OUT AND BEGAN REMOVING THE TRANSPONDER. I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD A WAIVER FOR THE ACFT, SINCE WE ARE UNDER THE 30 NM VEIL OF THE STL TCA. THE CHIEF PLT, MR X, CAME OUT OF THE HANGAR AND INFORMED ME THAT NO WAIVER IS REQUIRED TO FLY WITH THE TRANSPONDER INOP OR REMOVED. HE SAID THE STL TWR PERSONNEL GAVE VERBAL PERMISSION, BUT REFUSED TO GRANT A WAIVER OR PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING TO THAT EFFECT. THE VERBAL MESSAGE FROM STL ATC IS TO FLY THE NO-TRANSPONDER- EQUIPPED ACFT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A WAIVER OR A WRITTEN PERMISSION FORM. SINCE THE CHIEF PLT SAID IT WAS OK, I FLEW THE ACFT FOR THE TRAINING FLT. I BELIEVE THE ATC FOLKS SHOULD EITHER GRANT A WAIVER OR PUT SOMETHING DOWN IN WRITING WHEN THEY OK THE NO-TRANSPONDER TRAINING FLTS UNDER THE TCA VEIL. AS THINGS STAND NOW, I FEEL IT NECESSARY TO SUBMIT A NASA FORM JUST IN CASE THE LCL FSDO DECIDES THE VERBAL ATC PERMISSION TO FLY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE ARPT FROM WHICH OPERATING IS APPROX 10 MI FROM THE PRIMARY ARPT OF THE TCA. THAT IS THE REASON FOR SUCH CONCERN. PREVIOUS TIMES WHEN SITUATION HAS OCCURRED, TWR HAS ISSUED AN IDENTIFYING NUMBER AND A DATE OF EXPIRATION OF WAIVER. PLT THEN HAS SOME RECORD TO REFER TO SHOULD ANY PROBLEM ARISE. IN THIS SITUATION INSTRUCTOR IS LEFT WITH ONLY VERBAL PERMISSION AND NO RECORD. BELIEVES STRONGLY THAT SOME POLICY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED SO THAT SOME RECORD EXISTS THAT PROPER PROCS WERE FOLLOWED. OTHERWISE THE INSTRUCTOR PLT IS LEFT HANGING IN THE WIND. ONE PERSON'S WORD AGAINST ANOTHER.

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