Narrative:

After releasing from tow aircraft at 3000 ft, I discovered mountain wave lift which would allow me to climb above FL180. Ship was not IFR equipped. I idented myself as a glider and requested permission into the positive control area. Using my transponder, I was radar idented and was cleared into the block FL170 to FL200, in my present position. I am uncertain whether or not the ATC controller has the authority/authorized to grant an 'on the spot' waiver which requires IFR equipment above FL180. A local agreement was pending and may have been used by the controller to allow me to enter the positive control area on this particular occasion. In the future, I will stipulate to the controller that my ship is not IFR equipped, and that I will be maintaining VMC throughout the flight. Such clear communications should preclude an ATC violation and or FAA enforcement action. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that he does a great deal of glider flying and is a safety officer for a regional glider association. In addition, he writes articles for local dissemination for glider operations. However, since the flight reported was not planned to be extended into class a airspace, even though clearance was obtained, he was concerned that he was in violation of the aircraft equipment rule for IFR flight. He was referred to the far 91.205 wherein it specifies 'pwred' aircraft equipment requirements only, and does not reference gliders or balloons. Therefore, as long as the PIC has an instrument rating in airplanes, and an ATC clearance, the flight was legal. Of course, due to the special flight characteristics, ATC usually needs advanced warning through preflight planning in order to provide clearance to gliders and balloons which is intended by far 91.173(a).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A GLIDER UNCERTAIN OF LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR ACFT EQUIP REQUIREMENT IN POSITIVE CTL AIRSPACE.

Narrative: AFTER RELEASING FROM TOW ACFT AT 3000 FT, I DISCOVERED MOUNTAIN WAVE LIFT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ME TO CLB ABOVE FL180. SHIP WAS NOT IFR EQUIPPED. I IDENTED MYSELF AS A GLIDER AND REQUESTED PERMISSION INTO THE PCA. USING MY XPONDER, I WAS RADAR IDENTED AND WAS CLRED INTO THE BLOCK FL170 TO FL200, IN MY PRESENT POS. I AM UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE ATC CTLR HAS THE AUTH TO GRANT AN 'ON THE SPOT' WAIVER WHICH REQUIRES IFR EQUIP ABOVE FL180. A LCL AGREEMENT WAS PENDING AND MAY HAVE BEEN USED BY THE CTLR TO ALLOW ME TO ENTER THE PCA ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL STIPULATE TO THE CTLR THAT MY SHIP IS NOT IFR EQUIPPED, AND THAT I WILL BE MAINTAINING VMC THROUGHOUT THE FLT. SUCH CLR COMS SHOULD PRECLUDE AN ATC VIOLATION AND OR FAA ENFORCEMENT ACTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT HE DOES A GREAT DEAL OF GLIDER FLYING AND IS A SAFETY OFFICER FOR A REGIONAL GLIDER ASSOCIATION. IN ADDITION, HE WRITES ARTICLES FOR LCL DISSEMINATION FOR GLIDER OPS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE FLT RPTED WAS NOT PLANNED TO BE EXTENDED INTO CLASS A AIRSPACE, EVEN THOUGH CLRNC WAS OBTAINED, HE WAS CONCERNED THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ACFT EQUIP RULE FOR IFR FLT. HE WAS REFERRED TO THE FAR 91.205 WHEREIN IT SPECIFIES 'PWRED' ACFT EQUIP REQUIREMENTS ONLY, AND DOES NOT REF GLIDERS OR BALLOONS. THEREFORE, AS LONG AS THE PIC HAS AN INST RATING IN AIRPLANES, AND AN ATC CLRNC, THE FLT WAS LEGAL. OF COURSE, DUE TO THE SPECIAL FLT CHARACTERISTICS, ATC USUALLY NEEDS ADVANCED WARNING THROUGH PREFLT PLANNING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CLRNC TO GLIDERS AND BALLOONS WHICH IS INTENDED BY FAR 91.173(A).

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.