FAA Notification on Large Model Rockets

One would expect that multiple published airways might tend to converge there, making it a heavy traffic location - which might cause the FAA to deny ANY waivers.

Reply to
Mark Johnson
Loading thread data ...

And I agree Bob, the law was not evenly applied. Jerry may protest his innocence - but to me that is a moot issue. What is more of an issue is that TRA removed JI from the ranks of membership after an alleged violation, but others who have wittingly violated TRA and FAA regs have sustained their memberships. I feel sorry for JI because, even if he is guilty of violating regulations, he could claim that the regs are made null because they are not enforced on every member.

Anyone here wish to see JI reinstated? Personally I'd like to, even though the traffic in RMR would not be at the levels currently :-P

-B

-----

Reply to
Benjamin Chapman

Yup, airways tend to converge at VORs. I just don't see how a waiverless launch near a VOR differs from a waiverless launch away from a VOR.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

Duck!

:)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Exactly ZERO as you well know. You and I may be the only ones on rmr :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Ditto. Or shortly thereafter.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Correct. It is all about Jerry. It always was.

Jerry

"GOD? Well, yeah... the Rocket Gods owe a LOT to Jerry (and so do ALL of you)! I don't particularly care how you FEEL about him... but HPR would not exist today in its present form with Jerry. Just my (informed, non-emotional, non-prejudiced, non-"alternative" motive) opinion, of course."

- "Mark"

"What has he done for the hobby in the last two years? I don't remember reading an article of his in HPR, or remember much sage advie here. To people who don't know much, Bob (and Jerry) can be a godsend. There is NOWHERE else (if you have no local club) that you can learn how to build HPR."

- Jack Wiker

"Back in the '60s, there was an organization that brainwashed a lot of folks into believing that only 'gods' could deal with rocket motors"

- John Cato

He's YOUR god, They're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell.

- Locutus

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Then I could "just fly rockets".

:)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Exactly correct. The FAA never made a single peep on the topic. In fact they called ME asking me if I wanted to upgrade to annual waivers rather than one at a time. I said yes :)

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Legally, no difference. It's a violation either way. Statistically, the area around a VOR is a more target-rich environment - the actual hazard to traffic is arguably significantly greater. As I noted, I would not be surprised if the FAA wouldn't grant waivers at such a location at all...they are under no obligation to grant a waiver if they believe doing so is contrary to the 'public good.'

[Around here, I have to admit that my experience has been that the FAA may suggest an alternate location, or alternate time, if they see a conflict.]
Reply to
Mark Johnson

Well, he sure has made those claims. However, with all the other issues, (DOT, etc.), that are facts in evidence, makes me wonder if other issues may have contributed to his removal. I suspect, some of the more recent issues have played a part in his continued membership problems. I know some of them would be a problem for me, If I was on the BOD. In other words he would have some explaining to do.

If that would be the end result, it would almost be worth it..(;-))

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Exactly. A waiver is either granted or it is denied. Proximity to a commonly used navaid may be reason to deny a waiver, but if a waiver is granted the location of any navaids is of no concern to those conducting a launch.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

jerry DID NOT HAVE A WAIVER FOR THE LAUNCH IN QUESTION, if he did he would have shown it to us.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Prove it.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Danville

Like Martha Stewart, it's not the innocent mistake that got him in trouble, it's the lying about it when caught. The Danville boys and the Bong guys all admitted they'd made a mistake and promised to change their ways. They have since all led productive honest lives. Now, in Jerry's case, he lied about the waiver, never admitted he did anything wrong even when facts in hand proved otherwise. He then went about bashing his club until they had no other option but to throw him out, lest the club's reputation be tarnished by such a deviant, scumbag, lying, dishonest, con man.

Even when they offered to let him back in, Jerry could not admit to past mistakes, and came up with more lies to boot!

poor, poor Jerry.

Reply to
default

Now how could he prove the FAA never made a single peep on the topic? How does one prove a negative? How could he prove they called him asking if he wanted to upgrade to annual waivers rather than one at a time? Do you record all of your calls? He may or may not be a liar, I don't know and I don't care, but I do know you're demanding an unreasonable standard of proof.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

None of those issues (should I say that single issue) was even "in motion" until well after 2001.

The last adverse action from TRA was 1997-98 motor decert decert (with NO notice to the mfg!!).

Before that was 1992 membership revocation.

So no matter what you think of receiving a DOT fine for a single 2001 shipment, it is totally distint from anything to do with TRA at all.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I already posted an annual waiver.

And if there were ANY FAA action you KNOW there would be folks dancing on my grave big time.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

False and false. I would LOVE to see the supporting evidence for this claim. I have never seen it.

Just think, if it existed and was shown to me, there might be something to discuss. As it is right now there isn't. I am innocent till PROVEN guilty and I am not giuilty of what I was removed for.

It really is that simple.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Point!

The trolls ALWAYS use this tired tactic.

The answer is always the same as yours.

When asked for the evidence of the very claims made by TRA none is forthcoming, not even at BOD meetings convened for that very purpose!!!!!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.